From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7805 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2011 15:06:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 7791 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Feb 2011 15:06:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:06:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1FF6Koo029540 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:06:20 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1FF6Ke4001402; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:06:20 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1FF6Jle014864; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:06:19 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 44A363781C7; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:06:19 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Petr =?utf-8?Q?Hluz=C3=ADn?= Cc: Anitha Boyapati , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Testing Call frame information in .debug_frame section References: Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: ("Petr =?utf-8?Q?Hluz=C3=ADn=22's?= message of "Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:43:29 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2011-02/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Petr" =3D=3D Petr Hluz=C3=ADn writes: Petr> Are there more advantages? Are they pretty common? Is there an Petr> automatized solution for them, yet? >> One or two weeks after an initial submission, if there has been no >> answer, just send a ping message as a follow-up to your patch. =C2=A0The= n do >> it every week. Petr> This sounds quite mechanical, boring and common to a lot of people Petr> (submitters). Great example of task suitable for machines. (Why do you Petr> people choose such suffering?) I am just describing the system as it actually exists, not really defending it or anything. The way I look at it is that if you want to get a patch in, you have to bear some of the burden. gdb tried a patch tracker for a while but it didn't prove to be very popular. Maybe most maintainers prefer working via email; but it is hard to know for sure. Recently some GCC developers started using Rietveld for patch tracking and review: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-01/msg00354.html Doug suggested using it for GDB as well, but AFAIK nobody has set it up. Maybe if you set it up, people would use it. Tom