From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23721 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2002 05:37:54 -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 23643 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 05:37:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mms3.broadcom.com) (63.70.210.38) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 05:37:53 -0000 Received: from 63.70.210.1 by mms3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom MMS-3 SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:37:47 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 1e1caf3a-b686-11d4-a6a3-00508bfc9ae5 Received: from dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com (dt-sj3-118 [10.21.64.118]) by mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g265bq1S021653; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:37:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cgd@localhost) by dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com ( 8.9.1/SJ8.9.1) id VAA15520; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:37:51 -0800 (PST) To: "Andrew Cagney" cc: "Nick Clifton" , "Andrew Cagney" , "Geoff Keating" , "Ben Elliston" , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common References: <3C85A44B.6090403@cygnus.com> From: cgd@broadcom.com Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:37:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: "Andrew Cagney"'s message of "Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:08:27 -0500" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 109B74A131250-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 At Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:08:27 -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > I'm wondering if it would be helpful for sim specific maintainers (at > least for sim/common based sims) to have implicit approval/write > permission on the sim/common directory. Uh, I was assuming that in general we (sim maintainers) had write after approval perms, but that approval was still required. (Concerned by your "write permission" comment there. Do tell me if i'm wrong. 8-) Personally, I wouldn't mind someone else having responsibility for reviewing my 'common' patches. I'd like to make sure i'm not doing more damage than i intend, and i say 'responsibility' because if somebody doesn't consider it their responsibility well, then, it probably won't happen. Of course, I'm sure we all have more than enough work to do... My hope is to get approval, and hopefully consensus, for a bunch of common patches over the next couple of months. To "minor" things like, oh, making the trace format a lot less lame. 8-) chris