Re: {PATCH] MI Doco [was Re: CLI and GDB/MI...]

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:11:46 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Eli, did you intend to approve the patch's content, or just its
> markup? I often can't tell in your responses.

I'm not sure I understand the question; feel free to elaborate if
what's below doesn't answer it.

The short answer is that if I approve a patch, that means I approve it
in its entirety.  That's what everyone else does, right?

The long answer is that I definitely look into aspects such as markup
and the documentation quality (indexing, clear language, etc.) when
reviewing a patch, and the approval includes them.  As for contents,
if I feel I don't understand the underlying issues well enough, I
usually say that in some way.  In this case, the issue was pretty much
clear to me and the text described it correctly, AFAICS.  (The email
address change that you requested is definitely not a codified
practice I knew about, although I don't mind the address either way.)

In any case, even if I happen to approve a doco change whose text is
nice and clear, but wrong as far as the facts go, I expect those in
the know to holler about the wrong parts, and then the author of the
patch or myself will fix them.  I cannot pretend I know everything, or
even that I know everything about what I don't know ;-)