From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13269 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2006 08:16:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 13261 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2006 08:16:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:16:18 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-243-102.inter.net.il [83.130.243.102]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DVD25859 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:15:59 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:05:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: "Jim Blandy" CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, sje@cup.hp.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <8f2776cb0603241517h28ed0546m571858c12de40ca2@mail.gmail.com> (jimb@red-bean.com) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove gdb/nlm subdirectory Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200603240102.RAA18110@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <8f2776cb0603232024u163c75edm20eb01ff1d476d18@mail.gmail.com> <20060324043008.GA5092@nevyn.them.org> <20060324144727.GA15703@nevyn.them.org> <200603242304.k2ON4iW5014084@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <8f2776cb0603241517h28ed0546m571858c12de40ca2@mail.gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00292.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:17:44 -0800 > From: "Jim Blandy" > Cc: drow@false.org, eliz@gnu.org, sje@cup.hp.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > Okay, I got confused, went back and actually parsed what everyone said > about this, aside from the general deferentialness: > > - I said I didn't think it was important to phase it out gradually. > - Daniel said he'd not mind seeing it removed. > - Eli said he saw no reason to have the staging period IF someone had > reason to believe it was unused. Daniel offered some reasons. > - Mark wants it gone. > > So we've got a general trend towards getting rid of it now, and if Eli > found Daniel's reasons adequate, we've got consensus. I interpreted Daniel's message as something like ``I'm not sure, I just know we never heard any problem or patch''. Which to me doesn't sound as firm reasons, just as lack of any information. So I think the patch you posted lately is okay for now.