From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30662 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2012 05:37:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 30549 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Apr 2012 05:37:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:36:57 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M3000700SSGSJ00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:36:55 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.249.186]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M30007EWSXIQ440@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:36:55 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:47:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA] - Improve suggestions for generating patches in CONTRIBUTE In-reply-to: <20120424202111.GA10958@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: sivachandra@google.com, palves@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83lilkfk3c.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20120416144401.GI2852@adacore.com> <4F8C34A8.30101@redhat.com> <20120417145452.GL2852@adacore.com> <83obqhf2sy.fsf@gnu.org> <20120424202111.GA10958@adacore.com> 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00841.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:21:11 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Siva Chandra , palves@redhat.com, > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Sorry, what is it that you've waited me to say? If this is about > > unified vs context diffs, then I have no preference; I can get along > > with either kind. > > I told Siva that this was considered documentation, and therefore > needed your approval for going in. Otherwise, I'm happy to approve :). Sorry, I missed that. Anyway, the change was a rather mechanical one and didn't really touch any text otherwise, so it doesn't need my approval. But I've read the diffs now, and I'm OK with them.