Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

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.

Michael C

Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 10:45:06PM -0500, 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.

In that case, I recommend RFC... but basically, if you're just posting
to see if anyone objects, I'd use PATCH: foo and "I'll commit this in a
few days unless someone minds".

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Fernando Nasser]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 10:45:06PM -0500, 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.
> 
> In that case, I recommend RFC... but basically, if you're just posting
> to see if anyone objects, I'd use PATCH: foo and "I'll commit this in a
> few days unless someone minds".
> 

I guess Michael Snyder meant RFC.  Michael Chastain does not need 
approval for the gdb.c++ tests so RFA would be kind of funny.


-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9

Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Michael Snyder]

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...

Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

Hmmm.  Sometimes, like this time, I post patches to testsuite/gdb.c++
that I am committing immediately.  And sometimes, I post patches for
testsuite/gdb.c++ and give people a day or two to comment before I commit.
Right now I am marking both of these as "[patch]".

Michael Snyder writes:
> If you want to avoid ambiguity, you could say "committed"
> in your original "PATCH" message.

I will do that, unless Andrew has something to say (I thought he
liked to see explicit "committed" messages to help him mananage
his inbox).

Michael C

Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Michael Snyder]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> Hmmm.  Sometimes, like this time, I post patches to testsuite/gdb.c++
> that I am committing immediately.  And sometimes, I post patches for
> testsuite/gdb.c++ and give people a day or two to comment before I commit.
> Right now I am marking both of these as "[patch]".

I think the custom is to mark the second type as "[RFA]".

> Michael Snyder writes:
> > If you want to avoid ambiguity, you could say "committed"
> > in your original "PATCH" message.
> 
> I will do that, unless Andrew has something to say (I thought he
> liked to see explicit "committed" messages to help him mananage
> his inbox).

I think that was meant to apply to the "[RFA]" genre.

Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Andrew Cagney]

> Hmmm.  Sometimes, like this time, I post patches to testsuite/gdb.c++
> that I am committing immediately.  And sometimes, I post patches for
> testsuite/gdb.c++ and give people a day or two to comment before I commit.
> Right now I am marking both of these as "[patch]".
> 
> Michael Snyder writes:
> 
>> If you want to avoid ambiguity, you could say "committed"
>> in your original "PATCH" message.
> 
> 
> I will do that, unless Andrew has something to say (I thought he
> liked to see explicit "committed" messages to help him mananage
> his inbox).

I think I'll stop using just [patch] as, yes it is pretty meaningless. 
[commit]?

enjoy,
Andrew

Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

Committed.

Michael C

2002-04-22  Michael Chastain  <mec@shout.net>

	* gdb.c++/method.exp: Fix syntax of reference to gdb/277.

Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Michael Snyder]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> Committed.
> 
> Michael C
> 
> 2002-04-22  Michael Chastain  <mec@shout.net>
> 
>         * gdb.c++/method.exp: Fix syntax of reference to gdb/277.

Michael, if your subject line includes "PATCH", I don't think
you need to send a second "committed" message.  My understanding
of the convention is that "PATCH" means "I checked this in".

If you want to avoid ambiguity, you could say "committed"
in your original "PATCH" message.

Cheers ,
Michael

[patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

This fixes method.exp to use the "gdb/NNN" syntax to refer to gnats PR's.

Michael C

2002-04-22  Michael Chastain  <mec@shout.net>

	* gdb.c++/method.exp: Fix syntax of reference to gdb/277.

Index: method.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/method.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -c -3 -p -r1.7 method.exp
*** method.exp	8 Apr 2002 22:41:46 -0000	1.7
--- method.exp	23 Apr 2002 05:03:46 -0000
*************** gdb_expect {
*** 124,131 ****
      # gcc versions gcc-3_1-branch%20020404 and HEAD%20020404 with -gstabs+
      # produce good stabs, but gdb prints "const class {...} *" const.
      # This is PR gdb/277.
!     # setup_kfail "gnats:gdb/277"
!     fail "print this in A::bar (gnats:gdb/277)"
    }
    -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" { fail "print this in A::bar" }
    timeout { fail "(timeout) print this in A::bar" }
--- 124,131 ----
      # gcc versions gcc-3_1-branch%20020404 and HEAD%20020404 with -gstabs+
      # produce good stabs, but gdb prints "const class {...} *" const.
      # This is PR gdb/277.
!     # setup_kfail "gdb/277"
!     fail "print this in A::bar (gdb/277)"
    }
    -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" { fail "print this in A::bar" }
    timeout { fail "(timeout) print this in A::bar" }