From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30008 invoked by alias); 25 May 2010 17:10:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 29923 invoked by uid 22791); 25 May 2010 17:10:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f169.google.com) (74.125.82.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 May 2010 17:10:43 +0000 Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so254656wyf.0 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 10:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.154.83 with SMTP id n19mr7394926wbw.147.1274807438977; Tue, 25 May 2010 10:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yakj.usersys.redhat.com (nat-pool-brq-t.redhat.com [209.132.186.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z33sm40716800wbd.7.2010.05.25.10.10.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 25 May 2010 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BFC0489.4040904@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:10:00 -0000 From: Paolo Bonzini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Wildenhues CC: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, gcc@gnu.org, DJ Delorie Subject: Re: toplevel out of sync References: <4BFBF578.40904@gnu.org> <20100525170912.GA21863@ins.uni-bonn.de> In-Reply-To: <20100525170912.GA21863@ins.uni-bonn.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 On 05/25/2010 07:09 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:06:16PM CEST: >> the toplevel configury of gcc/gdb/binutils is very much out of sync. > >> Unfortunately I don't have much time to devote to bringing the trees >> back in shape, and not even to chase down committers of patches >> placed only on one side. Can anybody help with this? > > I can take a look. > >> ... the last date when the tree was synchronized ... > > It looked fairly good 3 months ago[1]. > > Do you prefer tracking down committers and letting them finish their > work, or should I just go ahead and sync sets of commits as I did last > time? As you prefer. I'd rather see a list of commits before giving you green light though. :-) Paolo