From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5474 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2014 15:17:37 -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 5438 invoked by uid 89); 18 Aug 2014 15:17:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:17:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA98D1162FA; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:17:29 -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 QVZuluJhjPPa; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:17:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF901162C0; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:17:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 83623410E0; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:17:28 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Typos in gdb/mi Message-ID: <20140818151728.GA4841@adacore.com> References: <53F1BDFA.1090101@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00298.txt.bz2 > I understand the motivation for making the change, and it does make > the code better; thanks for taking the time! > > However, I was burned in past, when such cleanup patches caused merge > problems for any local patches anybody might have. I wonder what > others think? If it makes the code better, let's push it. It's not the contributor's fault that other people's as-yet-unpushed patches may or may not collide. If we have conflicting patches, their authors will just have to adjust, as we often do when doing collaborative work on the same area of the code. I haven't checked, but we do need to make sure that the contributor has a copyright assignment on file or else that the patch fits into the obvious/tiny patch rule. -- Joel