From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14383 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2009 19:41:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 14374 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2009 19:41:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:41:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n59JfHfE020553; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:41:17 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n59JfCqr031743; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:41:13 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-99.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.99]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n59JfBhZ000954; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:41:12 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id C3371486A3; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:41:10 -0600 (MDT) To: Samuel Bronson Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add an undwinder_name field to "struct frame_unwind" for use by "info frame". References: <1243638987-4533-1-git-send-email-naesten@gmail.com> <871vpudzkd.wl%naesten@gmail.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <871vpudzkd.wl%naesten@gmail.com> (Samuel Bronson's message of "Mon\, 08 Jun 2009 20\:24\:18 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Samuel" == Samuel Bronson writes: Tom> This mostly looks ok. It needs a ChangeLog entry. And I have some Tom> formatting nits... Samuel> Hmm. How is that different from the thing above the patch (aka "commit Samuel> message")? There's an extensive, nit-picky standard for ChangeLog formatting. http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Change-Logs A lot of the style manual is worth reading, just because we review patches for conformance to it. [ assignment ] Samuel> Ah, no, not yet. I assume this doesn't qualify? I'd be fairly Samuel> happy to do so, my concerns at this point being: I will get you started. We can't answer your questions, but you can ask the FSF assignment clerk and see what he says. Tom