From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1293 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2002 23:15:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 942 invoked by uid 22784); 8 Jan 2002 23:15:26 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Newsgroups: cygnus.patches.gdb Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint.c Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:15:00 -0000 Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Message-ID: <3C3B6ECB.23A6DBCF@redhat.com> References: <200201080149.g081nHw00463@reddwarf.cygnus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: reddwarf.cygnus.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: cronkite.cygnus.com 1010528248 16181 205.180.231.12 (8 Jan 2002 22:17:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: postmaster@cygnus.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jan 2002 22:17:28 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup cygnus.patches.gdb X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 Klee Dienes wrote: > > Michael Snyder writes: > > > 2002-01-07 Michael Snyder > > > > * tracepoint.c (tracepoint_save_command): From Klee Dienes -- > > use tilde_expand and strerror for opening save-tracepoints file. > > > > Just to make sure I understand the procedure I should be following: > > Does this mean that I should re-submit a version of the > 'save-breakpoints' patch with this change removed from it? Or does it > just mean that this part of the patch has been accepted, and I should > wait to hear from the other relevant maintainers before revising or > committing the rest of the save-breakpoint patch? If the latter, why > not just say "the changes to tracepoint.c are approved; please commit > them"? I don't mean this as complaint, just trying to make sure I'm > following the system properly. Ah, I think we've had a communication breakdown. I thought that your previous patch was defunct, and we were waiting for you to resubmit it. Rereading the old thread, I can see where I lost continuity. Sorry for the confusion -- can we start again? I actually liked the 'save-breakpoints' command, and was thinking of pinging you to see when you planned to resubmit it. But I don't like it being grouped together with the 'future-break' command. They're really separate, though related, and I'd rather consider separate functionalities separately. Besides, the two together make a really huge patch, one that it's difficult to review line by line. As for the change to tracepoints, I had that sitting in my source tree from your earlier submission, and I was just cleaning up loose ends. I decided to make sure that didn't get lost, while waiting for you to resubmit your patch. Sorry if I jumped the gun on you. > Also, is there a formalized way to ping or somehow track already > submitted patches? We've got a number of other patches pretty much > ready to submit (the Objective-C patches being the most notable of > these), but since they depend on some of the patches already > submitted, I was hoping to get these resolved first. Should I just go > ahead and post them, with a note that they assume that some of the > already-submitted patches have been committed? This can get to be a > real mess eventually, as when I modify one patch in response to > feedback, I then have to go modify all the dependent patches. Or > should I just badger individual maintainers until the ones already > submitted have been resolved? Patches shouldn't take as long to be approved as this one. I regret that your first major effort ran into a snag, and promise to try and see that it doesn't happen again. Having multiple outstanding patches that depend on each other can be a major headache. I recommend making each patch as small and discrete as possible, so that they can be approved quickly. > I realize the irony of showing up after years of code-divergence, and > then being in a big "rush rush rush" mode to get patches considered > for acceptance. But I'm sure we (the Apple GDB engineers) only have a > limited window of oppotunity before some other crisis comes up to > distract us, and I'm hoping to take as much advantage of this > opportunity to merge the sources as I possibly can. If a week goes by without a response, you should ping the list. We might have gotten distracted ourselves, or there could be a misunderstanding such as this one.