From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18707 invoked by alias); 11 May 2013 10:38:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 18698 invoked by uid 89); 11 May 2013 10:38:58 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 May 2013 10:38:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37ABB2ED04; Sat, 11 May 2013 06:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id plDODi2BtakL; Sat, 11 May 2013 06:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42652EBB3; Sat, 11 May 2013 06:38:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1E724C1BD5; Sat, 11 May 2013 14:38:49 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 10:38:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: David Taylor , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for QTro remote packet Message-ID: <20130511103848.GL9160@adacore.com> References: <10772.1367429886@usendtaylorx2l> <5182A112.3050303@redhat.com> <518D0188.60003@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <518D0188.60003@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00408.txt.bz2 > As for the 7.6.1 release notes in the wiki, I've went ahead and > modelled from Joel's entry, and added: > > "PR remote/15455 (QTro remote packet broken)" > > I think there's no way to get that wrong if Joel's entry is > good too. :-) I think that's a good seed, and allows for a concise summary of the fixes. Anyone interested can get more detailed info from the PR itself. I have been wondering whether we might want to attach a more detailed description, but I am afraid that this would discourage people from reading it. So I think the current approach is a good balance. Let's evaluate it, and adjust only if we feel it would be worth it. -- Joel