From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32729 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 19:04:49 -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 32709 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 19:04:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 19:04:47 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22252; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CC6FEF9.BC2462A7@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:04:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp References: <200204240345.g3O3j6615086@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00965.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > Michael Snyder writes: > > I think the custom is to mark the second type as "[RFA]". > > Okay, I'll try that. It feels a little funny because I'm not actually > asking for approval, I'm asking for a veto (if any). That is, if no > response comes in, then I commit such a patch. It's just syntax, Michael. ;-) I don't think we need to introduce a new RFV flag...