From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii To: dberlin@redhat.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI? Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:59:00 -0000 Message-id: <200103150907.EAA27838@indy.delorie.com> References: <200103131956.f2DJuCT31263@fillmore.constant.com> <20010314132500.D6148@disaster.jaj.com> <20010314212236.A28674@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00114.html > From: Daniel Berlin > Date: 14 Mar 2001 22:35:09 -0500 > > Having some good sense left, i'll just drop out of the discussion > at this point and get back to work. But there are plently of patches > that have nothing to do with C++, or even me. It took a month to > approve Jason Merrill's simple AUTO_MANGLING change (I know it sounds > like a C++ fix, but it doesn't fall in my maintainership, so it's > not), for instance. There are plently of examples. > > > > > I won't go into great details about why there were problems with patch > > acceptance but suffice it to say that not all of the problems were due > > to the fact that GDB patch approval is (arguably) slow. > And i'll leave this one alone. Suffice to say there are other problems > as well, but they are mostly minor compared to patch approval time. FWIW, I always had the GDB patches I posted as an RFA approved or commented on in reasonable time (i.e. about a week). In any case, a fork is not something people should consider easily, just because someone's patch is not accepted quickly enough.