From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Snyder To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] update "info scope" with new symtypes Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 00:20:00 -0000 Message-id: <40A16DD3.9080503@redhat.com> References: <409BFF70.8020304@redhat.com> <409C13DB.6010409@gnu.org> <409C58E7.60204@redhat.com> <409D045D.90207@gnu.org> <40A156F1.8050407@redhat.com> <40A159CA.70809@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00356.html Andrew Cagney wrote: >> >> 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. That's clear. I self-reviewed this one, and my white-space changes did not cause me any discomfort. > Either way, the contributor is > expected to meet the same standards. Andrew, I think you make these 'standards' up to suit your whim. One thing I know is, I never voted on the one you're claiming now. The discussion I took part in was about the difficulty of reviewing other people's patches. > What we definitly do not do is apply lower standards to self-reviewed patches. No? Then how come you made no comment about these patches? http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-01/msg00040.htm http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-01/msg00430.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-05/msg00500.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00905.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-08/msg00404.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-08/msg00413.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-01/msg00663.html