From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14161 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 19:10:42 -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 14154 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 19:10:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 19:10:41 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id 5A51520766; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:09:16 -0500 (EST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Roland McGrath , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] target_read_aux_vector References: <200310070208.h9728fCd011811@magilla.sf.frob.com> <3F841B0F.1060104@redhat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3F841B0F.1060104@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > In that case, can I suggest posting such things as [wip] > (work-in-progress). That way it's clear that the change is intended > as a discussion point, and not a final waiting-on-approval patch. It > unfortunatly comes across as very strange when someone posts what > looks like the final [rfa] for for a specific variant of a change when > the related technical discussion has not been resolved. A WIP marker is nice, but I don't agree it's somehow an affront to post a patch in the middle of a discussion. Even if Roland had intended it as a final RFA, everyone should be willing to consider changes to their patches --- even after they've been committed. Being inflexible, making unreasonable demands, and things like that are what's offensive.