From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27325 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2003 06:44:58 -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 27318 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2003 06:44:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Oct 2003 06:44:57 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AEMrJ-0008VV-WD; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:57:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:44:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Nick Roberts CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <16285.49948.919736.737506@nick.uklinux.net> (message from Nick Roberts on Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:15:08 +0000) Subject: Re: PATCH (gdb/mi) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <16285.49948.919736.737506@nick.uklinux.net> X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00804.txt.bz2 > From: Nick Roberts > Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:15:08 +0000 > > I'll gladly do this but I thought that the patch needs to be approved first. That's fine with me: you don't need to waste your time working on the docs if you aren't sure the code will be accepted. Just don't forget to add the docs once the code is approved. > Finally the CONTRIBUTE file doesn't ask for documentation to be > included when submitting a patch. It's been suggested to add such a requirement (and even remove undocumented features already present in the code base), but I personally never had the resolve to actually do that. It sounds too drastic a measure. > Perhaps I've used the wrong subject header and it looks like the patch has > already been committed. My impression now is that: > > RFC is for maintainers who ask for comments before committing their own patch. > RFA is for those with write after approval. > commit is for a patch that has been committed. That's not what I know. RFC is for any contributor who is not sure the concept she is proposing is valid. RFA is for when there are no doubts about the concept, but the actual implementation needs an approval. > PATCH seems, generally, to be for a commit also. That should be COMMIT, I think. > Most people who post to this list have some kind of write access to the > repository. That might be true, but I don't think that's a requirement. Anyone could use those categories, AFAIK.