From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13241 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2007 03:53:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 13225 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Dec 2007 03:53:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:53:10 +0000 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id h2so2011775ugf for ; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:53:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.249.8 with SMTP id w8mr3259477ugh.1196653987595; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:53:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?78.130.100.26? ( [78.130.100.26]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 31sm9316176ugg.2007.12.02.19.53.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:53:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47535716.3010208@portugalmail.pt> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:53:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; pt-BR; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lerele CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [gdbserver/win32] (3/11) Fix suspend count handling References: <4737B543.80607@portugalmail.pt> <20071201185337.GB24231@caradoc.them.org> <4751B674.50306@champenstudios.com> In-Reply-To: <4751B674.50306@champenstudios.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 Lerele wrote: > > Just a couple small tiny details: > > Not that it's super important, but in all the series of patches where > both our names appear, I think my name should be listed second (if at > all) in the changelog, as Pedro did the vast majority of the work for > these patches, and merged with the one I sent. > What's fair, is fair, I think. :) > I don't think there's any written rule about the order of the names, but, if were to write one, I'd say that the chronological order in which people touched the patch would be the most objective. Saying who's done more than who is very subjective, and honestly, I'm certainly not losing my sleep over that. > Also, is it necessary to include the eMail? This will need an answer from someone who knows the rules better than me. It is costumary to post the raw email address on the body of the patch submission messages, on the ChangeLog entry. I'll try to remember not putting yours raw the next time I submit a patch with your name on it. Please understand that you'd be the exception to the rule, so it is susceptible to being forgotten or overlooked. Looking over the ChangeLog files of gcc/binutils/gdb [1], I see a few entries setting precedent of using mangled addresses. [1] grep "^[0-9]" ChangeLog*| grep -v "@" > I'd prefer not to include mine if this is possible, if this can lower > spam getting into my mail box. > If you're already being spammed, then I doubt this can make a difference. I'd like to move forward, so I've removed your email address from the pending entries, making them like like so for now: 2007-12-03 Leo Zayas Pedro Alves Changing it to some other form if needed can be easilly done later. Patch checked in. -- Pedro Alves