From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22933 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2002 20:51:21 -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 22926 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 20:51:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2002 20:51:19 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC7B3D47; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:51:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D2DEFC4.3020508@ges.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:58:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: Daniel Berlin , Petr Sorfa , "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] DWARF support for .debug_loc offsets References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 > Daniel Berlin writes: > >> On 11 Jul 2002, Jim Blandy wrote: > >> > A procedural nit: putting "PATCH" in the subject line means by >> > convention that you've committed, or are about to commit, the patch in >> > your message. If you're submitting a patch for approval, you should >> > put "RFA" in your subject. > >> >> You are aware, that the idea that putting [PATCH] in the line means you >> are committing a patch, is pretty much different than every other >> project? > > > No, I wasn't aware of that at all. > > >> Look at GCC, fer instance. >> [PATCH] means it's a patch, to be looked at. >> >> It's very confusing to submit patches to GDB, when it's the only one with >> different procedures. > > > It seems to me GDB's conventions have been working pretty well, but > maybe that's because we deal with regular contributors. But if there > are, in fact, established, widely-used conventions, then I think GDB > should use them. It gets regular comments and does confuse people. There have been several attempts but no one has come up with a convention that sticks. Andrew