From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23642 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2002 18:03:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23630 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 18:03:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2002 18:03:13 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id BF1565EA11; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:03:10 -0500 (EST) To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Petr Sorfa , "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] DWARF support for .debug_loc offsets References: From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00234.txt.bz2 Daniel Berlin writes: > On 11 Jul 2002, Jim Blandy wrote: > > A procedural nit: putting "PATCH" in the subject line means by > > convention that you've committed, or are about to commit, the patch in > > your message. If you're submitting a patch for approval, you should > > put "RFA" in your subject. > > You are aware, that the idea that putting [PATCH] in the line means you > are committing a patch, is pretty much different than every other > project? No, I wasn't aware of that at all. > Look at GCC, fer instance. > [PATCH] means it's a patch, to be looked at. > > It's very confusing to submit patches to GDB, when it's the only one with > different procedures. It seems to me GDB's conventions have been working pretty well, but maybe that's because we deal with regular contributors. But if there are, in fact, established, widely-used conventions, then I think GDB should use them.