From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8323 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2013 09:52:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 8309 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2013 09:52:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:51:57 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UAHCW-0005Lz-B2 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:51:56 -0800 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:51:56 -0800 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:51:55 -0800 Message-ID: <512C8583.4060607@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:52:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Subject: Re: [patch] gdb/CONTRIBUTE update References: <20130221202629.GA30015@host2.jankratochvil.net> <512C80DA.5070600@codesourcery.com> <20130226093829.GA5802@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20130226093829.GA5802@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00647.txt.bz2 On 02/26/2013 05:38 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > This even is not an idea of mine, it was concluded on some GNU Tools Cauldron. > If you meant Cauldron last year, I can't recall any discussions on this. > I do not speak here whether the patch itself should be included in the PING > mail again or not, I do not find that important and it is also not expressed > explicitly in the proposed paragraph above. OK. The subject is prefixed with "PING". What should we put in the body of the mail? The url of the mail archive or something else? -- Yao (齐尧)