From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18751 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2002 19:09:59 -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 18742 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2002 19:09:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2002 19:09:58 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2223E4B; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:09:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DE27582.90005@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:09:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Move find_frame_addr_in_frame_chain() to varobj.c References: <3DE0DFD9.6090005@redhat.com> <3DE26F28.59C8E54B@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00602.txt.bz2 > Say, is this a policy change? > Are we substituting [commit] for [PATCH]? There isn't a policy. People have observed though that `patch' is pretty ambigous - some people use it when subitting something for aproval, others when committing a patch, others ... So I'm just trying to avoid it. Andrew