From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 56599 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2018 16:42:46 -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 56568 invoked by uid 89); 29 Oct 2018 16:42:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=sergio, Sergio X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:42:45 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA9003082127; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unused-10-15-17-196.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.17.196]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796BC608EE; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:42:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: John Darrington Cc: Simon Marchi , Rainer Orth , Simon Marchi , "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] GDBSERVER: Listen on a unix domain (instead of TCP) socket if requested. References: <20181013175801.2670-1-john@darrington.wattle.id.au> <87a7nbxb2v.fsf@redhat.com> <20181019185548.izouwatbcjwnrs2a@jocasta.intra> <877eidwwlz.fsf@redhat.com> <20181028181010.yt2xlp5in65xsc4f@jocasta.intra> <20181029082435.bxgluc6zdqs5ytbq@jocasta.intra> <4da7206f-6e6a-7aad-634e-a4485d99e988@ericsson.com> <20181029162513.oztznqp74gudrqgm@jocasta.intra> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20181029162513.oztznqp74gudrqgm@jocasta.intra> (John Darrington's message of "Mon, 29 Oct 2018 17:25:14 +0100") Message-ID: <87a7mwd7r0.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg00695.txt.bz2 On Monday, October 29 2018, John Darrington wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 03:51:55PM +0000, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-10-29 5:11 a.m., Rainer Orth wrote: > > Hi John, > > > >> However I've checked in a fix for this issue, and tested it by building > >> natively with a hacked set of standard include headers. > > > > you always need to post patches here, if only for reference. > > Doesn't that make the gdb-cvs list completely redundant? > > Not only should you post here the patches you push as obvious, but I don't > think that this: > > https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=98a17ece013cb94cd602496b9efb92b8816b3953 > > falls under the obvious rule: > > But a number of people had complained that their build was broken, and > this was a fix for that. I judged that in consideration of those > people fixding their problem was more important than strict observance > of protocol. > > I can't judge whether the patch is right or not with a quick glance, but it > certainly is complex enough to warrant a discussion (as Rainer's reply below > shows). > > > Additionally, it seems like the initial 4-patch series was pushed without > explicit approval from a maintainer (at least I can't find any). Next time, > please wait to have an approval before pushing. If you are not sure whether > a reply constitutes an a approval, it's better to ask the maintainer to > clarify. > > All of those patches were certainly discussed. In the past, when I've > followed up a person who has commented on a patch, but been vague about > approval, I have had either a piqued response; or no response at all. We were certainly discussing the patches, but they were not approved by anyone. It's also worth mentioning that I raised various points that were not addressed (even though we discussed them). It is still a requirement that the patches need to be approved by at least one maintainer before it is pushed to the repository. > If you think it necesary however I can revert anything you think hasn't > had enough discussion. Yes, please. The patch series is not ready to be pushed yet; there are a bunch of points I raised that were not addressed (and are now causing the failures). I am not a global maintainer, but it is my opinion that the patch series should be reverted for now. We can continue discussing and fixing things with it here in the list. Thanks, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/