From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20681 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 16:24:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20669 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 16:24:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (69.3.5.6) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 16:24:07 -0000 Received: from [128.164.132.31] (account dberlin HELO dberlin.org) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP-TLS id 2901200; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:24:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:24:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Zaretskii Eli , Daniel Jacobowitz , Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com To: Andrew Cagney From: Daniel Berlin In-Reply-To: <3E55011F.8090801@redhat.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2 On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 11:23 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Daniel Berlin, > > You and your track record are a case in point for why it is important > to for GDB developers to both receive and respect peer review. While that's kind of you Andrew, its also irrelevant. > I find it extreamly ironic that you, of all people, should be arguing > that the system is stifling. That's also nice, but irrelevant. Personal attacks do not answer any points raised. > Yes, the system was a barrier to you but that was for a very good > reason. Please don't try to use yourself as the sob story. Where did I do so? > The only real mistake in your case was to not step in earlier and see > you given the boot. > Grow up Andrew. Do i answer your emails with personal attacks? > Andrew >