From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10653 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2012 10:05:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 10637 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2012 10:05:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:05:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9CA53j6022070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:05:03 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9CA51R3012659; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:05:02 -0400 Message-ID: <5077EB4D.8000809@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:05:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] Cleanup MI test cases References: <1346419770-5718-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1348790666-2544-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <5065FC2B.6060604@redhat.com> <5077E6FB.6040206@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <5077E6FB.6040206@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-10/txt/msg00197.txt.bz2 On 10/12/2012 10:46 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > Looks I misread some discussions before. :) At the very beginning, my > thought was to do "mi2-foo.exp -> mi-foo.exp". During the discussion, > especially the patch 'mi-cli.exp -> mi2-cli.exp' patch was approved, Whoops. I didn't really pay attention to the final naming of that file then. Sorry about that. > No, since we decide to keep "mi-foo.exp", the patch just removes > "mi2-foo.exp" files, as they are identical to mi-foo.exp or sub-set of > mi-foo.exp. Great. > How about this patch below? Note that this patch renames "mi2-cli.exp" > to "mi-cli.exp". Looks OK to me. Thanks! -- Pedro Alves