Re: [PATCH] MI Doco

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

 > >  > Now please post only the new parts, the ones I've never seen.  Please
 > >  > don't commit anything before that.
 > > 
 > > I'm not sure where this is leading because at some stage I will want to
 > > commit the parts that you have already seen and approved.  It would be
 > > easier for me to commit those now and submit a patch for the new parts,
 > > so that there is no more confusion about what you are approving.  Would
 > > that be OK?
 > 
 > I no longer have a clear idea what do you mean by ``those'' patches
 > that you want to commit.  

No, but I have a clear idea about what you have approved and what you may not
have seen.  You could choose to trust me.

 >                                Please help me see the light.
 > 
 > I've read and approved the patch you posted here:
 > 
 >   http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-06/msg00030.html
 > 
 > subject to the comments in my response here:
 > 
 >   http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-06/msg00104.html
 > 
 > You responded with this message:
 > 
 >   http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-06/msg00117.html
 > 
 > where you seemed to say that the patch included in the message was the
 > previous one, with my comments fixed and some node reordering.  I
 > approved the reordering, which I thought to be the only new part (in
 > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-06/msg00121.html).  If the
 > patch from msg00117.html included something other than what I thought
 > it did, please tell me where to look to find the new parts.

Clearly they're in msg00117.html, more specifically everything after and
including "@subsubheading A Bad Command".

 >                                                              I cannot
 > approve something I didn't review, and if I have to read it all anew,
 > it will have to wait for at least a week, as I won't have enough time
 > before that.

The changes are quite simple although the patch may not look it.  I've
removed the MI commands related to "display" and I've split a node.  It's
just that these two changes overlap in the patch.


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob