From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29454 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2006 07:24:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 29436 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jun 2006 07:24:50 -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; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:24:18 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-208-152.inter.net.il [80.230.208.152]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id ETK02719 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:24:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:24:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20060531221146.GA29439@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 31 May 2006 18:11:46 -0400) Subject: Re: {PATCH] MI Doco [was Re: CLI and GDB/MI...] Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <17509.54397.736467.479414@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <17509.943.40875.198555@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20060512221531.GA1741@brasko.net> <17510.62256.102468.268003@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060513154631.GA4941@nevyn.them.org> <17531.61787.895726.198461@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <17532.61231.319016.988575@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060531221146.GA29439@nevyn.them.org> 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: 2006-06/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:11:46 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > Eli, did you intend to approve the patch's content, or just its > markup? I often can't tell in your responses. I'm not sure I understand the question; feel free to elaborate if what's below doesn't answer it. The short answer is that if I approve a patch, that means I approve it in its entirety. That's what everyone else does, right? The long answer is that I definitely look into aspects such as markup and the documentation quality (indexing, clear language, etc.) when reviewing a patch, and the approval includes them. As for contents, if I feel I don't understand the underlying issues well enough, I usually say that in some way. In this case, the issue was pretty much clear to me and the text described it correctly, AFAICS. (The email address change that you requested is definitely not a codified practice I knew about, although I don't mind the address either way.) In any case, even if I happen to approve a doco change whose text is nice and clear, but wrong as far as the facts go, I expect those in the know to holler about the wrong parts, and then the author of the patch or myself will fix them. I cannot pretend I know everything, or even that I know everything about what I don't know ;-)