From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-8369-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 16818 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 18:22:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 16811 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2002 18:22:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2002 18:22:08 -0000
Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (toenail.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.211])
	by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 30516B8013; Tue,  9 Apr 2002 14:22:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from bje@localhost)
	by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g39IM7q12916;
	Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:22:07 -0400
From: Ben Elliston <bje@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15539.12623.535923.366462@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:22:00 -0000
To: cgd@broadcom.com
Cc: "Andrew Cagney" <ac131313@cygnus.com>,
	"Nick Clifton" <nickc@redhat.com>,
	"Andrew Cagney" <ac131313@redhat.com>,
	"Geoff Keating" <geoffk@redhat.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common
In-Reply-To: <yov5g024px2q.fsf@broadcom.com>
References: <3C85A44B.6090403@cygnus.com>
	<15537.43529.140988.838892@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>
	<3CB1C857.9080902@cygnus.com>
	<15538.58681.963609.704984@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>
	<mailpost.1018357082.12343@news-sj1-1>
	<yov5g024px2q.fsf@broadcom.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00138.txt.bz2

>>>>> "cgd" == cgd  <cgd@broadcom.com> writes:

  >> While I agree with this point, I also like the idea of having a
  >> devil's advocate to approve sim/common patches.  In the heat of the
  >> moment, it's easy to think of patches to sim/common to solve
  >> port-specific problems that are not in the best interest of all
  >> simulators.

  cgd> For what it's worth, I agree with Ben here.  8-)

  cgd> I'd _prefer_ to have others review my changes (as long i can
  cgd> get that review in a timely fashion)...

Agreed--and as I stated, I don't believe there is any evidence to
suggest that timeliness is an issue at this point.

Ben