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: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:41:00 -0000 Message-id: <40A512D4.3090105@redhat.com> References: <409BFF70.8020304@redhat.com> <409C13DB.6010409@gnu.org> <40A4D0AF.3060902@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00432.html Andrew Cagney wrote: Add LOC_COMPUTED etc. to scope_info. Michael, most of this patch is white space changes and as such should separated out and committed separatly. Michael, I appologise for my very poor choice of words. We've previously all agreed that it is helpful to commit whitespace changes separately; it's easier to sort things out when looking at CVS diffs later on. Could you do that? Andrew, I don't agree that we have all agreed to what you say. What I recall discussing (and my review of the mail archive bears out my recollection) is that it is helpful if submissions for review have whitespace changes separated out, becuase otherwise they are difficult to review. I also did not find any examples where you previously asked a global maintainer to redo a mixed patch to a file that he or she maintained. I did, OTOH, find at least seven examples where a maintainer had committed such a patch, and nobody said anything about it. I posted links to those patches. I think you are proposing a new standard. I'm not committed to opposing that standard, but it is new, and I think warrants discussion by the group. If the group agrees to that standard, I will be happy to abide by it. But standards should be set by the group, not by one person. Wouldn't you agree?