From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21204 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2003 00:51:22 -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 21196 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2003 00:51:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2003 00:51:21 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h990pKM03597 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:51:21 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h990pJD28068; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:51:19 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h990pJi15877; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:51:19 -0700 Message-ID: <3F84B107.9080008@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:51:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney 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> In-Reply-To: <3F841B0F.1060104@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: >> Roland, not sure why you posted this. The relevant discussion has still >> >>> not been resolved. >> >> >> >> I like to write code more than I like to speculate about how I will write >> it. My favorite sort of discussion about code includes exchanges of >> "like >> this? [and some code that might work]", "no, different because of foo >> and >> bar", "ok, so like this? [and some different code that might work]", >> and so >> on. Let's have a discussion like that! >> >> I developed one of the alternatives being discussed to flesh out the >> issues >> with doing it that way. In the process, I noticed that part of it was >> independently useful (fixing a missing part of gcore functionality). I >> posted this patch to demonstrate the utility of this alternative for the >> purpose we are discussing, and the bonus feature that my patch as posted >> fixes an existing, separate shortcoming of gdb. Now discuss! > > > 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. In fact (now that you mention it), I though I understood that [PATCH] means "I have applied this patch", as opposed to "please review my patch". But what the heck, are these conventions even written down anywhere?