From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29691 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2002 17:11:01 -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 29668 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2002 17:10:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2002 17:10:59 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F183DD4; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D189793.2030809@cygnus.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:11:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020613 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: gettextize jv-exp.y References: <87bs9zhp7c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00511.txt.bz2 > Once a few of these go in, I'd like to start treating pure wrapping > patches (no code changes, just _() addition and maybe typo fixes) as > obvious, not requiring approval. What do you think of that idea? > Anything requiring an actual code change I'll still seek approval for. Can you propose this in an e-mail to gdb@? enjoy, Andrew