From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1349 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2013 19:39:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 1300 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2013 19:39:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:39:42 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MHT00H00D7MOS00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:39:04 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MHT00HNFD93DA50@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:39:04 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:39:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove ARI GNU/Linux rule (was: New ARI warning Tue Feb 5 02:01:10 UTC 2013 in -D 2013-02-05-gmt) In-reply-to: <20130206191933.GC1410@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr, sergiodj@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83y5f18c62.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20130205020110.GA5646@sourceware.org> <002001ce0450$9de57b00$d9b07100$%muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <002301ce0451$4cbc6440$e6352cc0$%muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <8338x99u3h.fsf@gnu.org> <20130206191933.GC1410@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: 2013-02/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:19:33 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Pierre Muller , sergiodj@redhat.com, > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Aren't we throwing away the baby together with the bath water? > > What text was flagged by these rules that we think is kosher? Can we > > modify these rules such that they don't flag such kosher phrases? > > I think we're spending way too much time on this compared to > its relative importance... Maybe so, but this argument goes both ways...