From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1422 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2011 20:27:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 1413 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2011 20:27:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:26:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5RKQcmV026309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:26:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5RKQar1004431; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:26:36 -0400 From: Phil Muldoon To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Kevin Pouget , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] [python] Implement Inferior.current_inferior References: <20110627201314.GK20676@adacore.com> Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20110627201314.GK20676@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:13:14 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00411.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: >> Whether your patch, or mine makes it in I don't mind. The patches looks >> similar, but mine has a few extra tests and accounts for the reference >> leaking/sigsegv. I would be happy to add your name to the ChangeLog as >> co-implementer if the maintainers think this is ok (and they approve the >> patch). > > It could be a merge of the two patches, with both names on the CL, > I think. As our patches are basically the same, the merge would not really be needed. Apart from the reference counting hunks, they are basically the same. I would take my patch which deals with the reference counting issue and add Kevin's name to the ChangeLog. (At least to me that is the cleanest way to do it other than trying to merge two very similar patches.) My real question was: As Kevin is lost in FSF paperwork with substantial delays, if it would be okay under the current FSF assignment rules to co-credit the ChangeLog with Kevin as the author. It probably isn't - I know some projects do this, but I have no experience with this scenario in GDB. As Kevin has a previous implementation that is pending FSF paperwork (I am not sure if his patch was reviewed), I think he should have the first shot/discussion on that patch. I guess we have to just wait? Cheers, Phil