From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update "info scope" with new symtypes
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 22:55:00 -0000
Message-id: <40A159CA.70809@gnu.org>
References: <409BFF70.8020304@redhat.com> <409C13DB.6010409@gnu.org> <409C58E7.60204@redhat.com> <409D045D.90207@gnu.org> <40A156F1.8050407@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00349.html

Anyway, this discussion occurred in 2000 -- I've reviewed it,
and it was entirely concerned with the difficulty of *reviewing*
patches that included mixed code and whitespace changes. 
Right, and _every_ patch, gets reviewed.  It's just that some get 
self-reviewed rather than peer-reviwed.  Either way, the contributor is 
expected to meet the same standards.

What we definitly do not do is apply lower standards to self-reviewed 
patches.

Andrew