From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32279 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2011 20:36:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 32231 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Mar 2011 20:36:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:35:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219EB2BB0FB; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id PFHjIuxUxv+G; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83D92BB0F3; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EDF601459AD; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com, cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@gnu.org Subject: Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? Message-ID: <20110322203542.GJ2534@adacore.com> References: <20110322154327.GA8966@host1.jankratochvil.net> <83tyev7z7a.fsf@gnu.org> <20110322194836.GA23104@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110322194836.GA23104@host1.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00128.txt.bz2 > > Can you show these patches in full? > > I do not have anything else than you have. I just used diff on > ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash/readline-5.1.tar.gz > vs. src/readline. But one should rather check individual patches > with git annotate / git show etc. and compare them against readline-6.2. I think we've been very careful to make sure we get approval upstream in readline before checking in patches locally. So the number of local changes not present upstream should indeed be very small. -- Joel