From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8214 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2002 06:23:26 -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 8116 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 06:23:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 06:23:24 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA06226; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:21:05 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:23:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Tim Hollebeek cc: Tom Lord , dje@watson.ibm.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC] In-Reply-To: <20020326200123.A2817@pcp736370pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Tim Hollebeek wrote: > > The approach I am suggesting is an evolutionary step beyond > > the current practices and is quite consistent with the SC > > development goals. > > The SC can and will be the judge of that. Until then, please make > sure that your contributions to gcc meet or exceed your contributions > to this list. Sigh. Another attempt to shut up discenting opinions instead of dealing with them in a civilized and technical manner. If Tom's arguments are as grossly invalid as you indicate, there should be no problem to show that with simple technical arguments. Could you please do that? I, for one, would like to hear those arguments. And while at that, is it too much to ask for some minimal politeness, please?