From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21837 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 20:10:49 -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 21811 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 20:10:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 20:10:47 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182BA2B89; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 16:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F846F43.8030005@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:10:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: Roland McGrath , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] target_read_aux_vector References: <200310070208.h9728fCd011811@magilla.sf.frob.com> <3F841B0F.1060104@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00255.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney writes: > >> In that case, can I suggest posting such things as [wip] >> (work-in-progress). That way it's clear that the change is intended >> as a discussion point, and not a final waiting-on-approval patch. It >> unfortunatly comes across as very strange when someone posts what >> looks like the final [rfa] for for a specific variant of a change when >> the related technical discussion has not been resolved. > > > A WIP marker is nice, but I don't agree it's somehow an affront to > post a patch in the middle of a discussion. Even if Roland had > intended it as a final RFA, everyone should be willing to consider > changes to their patches --- even after they've been committed. > > Being inflexible, making unreasonable demands, and things like that > are what's offensive. Jim, Even if Roland doesn't use [wip], I'll now know what his intent was (and due credit to roland for taking the time to explain it) and understand the purpose. However, come the future, others may not realise this and may also be confused. As you know there is unfortunatly something of a history between Roland and various GDB developers, and that can be attributed at least in part to poor communication. If we can find better and clearer ways to communicate than we will all benefit. Andrew