From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31968 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2013 21:22:19 -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 31958 invoked by uid 89); 17 Nov 2013 21:22:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,RDNS_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout23.012.net.il Received: from Unknown (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:21:37 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWF00900F2VG900@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:21:28 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWF0093YFBSEW40@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:21:28 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:44:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc In-reply-to: To: Doug Evans Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <838uwmhgha.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1383458049-20893-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1383458049-20893-5-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <83k3gpa0hf.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:15:10 -0800 > From: Doug Evans > Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches > > > Thanks. But may I ask in the future not to split the patches to > > documentation that are related to the same series? When you split > > them, it makes the review harder, as I see the documentation changes > > piecemeal, rather than together. > > That may be hard to apply in general. I don't see why it would be. Can you elaborate? > For code we ask people to split such things out. > I can well imagine people applying the same logic to documentation. > I don't know that it necessarily applies here, but it could. Sorry, I don't understand: what logic? What I'm asking is not request me to review a 15-line change to documentation in 5 3-line pieces.