From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6496 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2014 15:48:12 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 6431 invoked by uid 89); 18 Aug 2014 15:48:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: usevmg20.ericsson.net Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (HELO usevmg20.ericsson.net) (198.24.6.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:48:02 +0000 Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8C.C1.05330.1EBC1F35; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:48:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [142.133.110.254] (147.117.188.8) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:47:59 -0400 Message-ID: <53F2202E.4040406@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:48:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: , Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [PATCH] Typos in gdb/mi References: <53F1BDFA.1090101@ericsson.com> <20140818151728.GA4841@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20140818151728.GA4841@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 On 14-08-18 11:17 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I understand the motivation for making the change, and it does make > > the code better; thanks for taking the time! > > > > However, I was burned in past, when such cleanup patches caused merge > > problems for any local patches anybody might have. I wonder what > > others think? > > If it makes the code better, let's push it. It's not the contributor's > fault that other people's as-yet-unpushed patches may or may not collide. > If we have conflicting patches, their authors will just have to adjust, > as we often do when doing collaborative work on the same area of the code. > I haven't checked, but we do need to make sure that the contributor > has a copyright assignment on file or else that the patch fits into > the obvious/tiny patch rule. About the copyright assignment, Andreas should be covered by the same paperwork as me. We have a site-wide assignment with the FSF that covers all developers in Ericsson Montreal (or Canada, I am not sure).