From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11381 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2006 12:31:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 11367 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2006 12:31:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:31:31 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-205-199.inter.net.il [80.230.205.199]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id AIK92991 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:31:25 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:31:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Nick Roberts , gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20060830040113.GA8257@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:01:13 -0400) Subject: Re: Merge of nickrob-async-20060513 to mainline? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <17652.63229.637451.185345@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060830023335.GA6377@nevyn.them.org> <17653.930.196634.143646@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060830040113.GA8257@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:01:13 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 03:18:58PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > If people are willing to review it then that is clearly preferable. If > > not, then after passing the testuite, putting it in the repository would > > seem to be a good way to test it. If it caused too much disruption then > > it could be reverted fairy easily and there is plenty of time before the > > next release. > > I'll wait to see what other developers have to say, but I think we > should at least make an effort to review it. I definitely agree that we should review the patch before committing it. That is what we do with any other patch. Saying it passed the test suite is not enough, since no one can prove that the test suite has sufficiently complete coverage to give such trust to it. In fact, we _know_ that the test suite cannot be trusted to be that good, because we continue adding tests to it all the time.