Re: [PATCH] MI Doco

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:14:34 +1200
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
>  > >  > 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.

If I somehow sounded like I didn't trust you, I apologize: I never
meant anything like that.  Of course I trust you; I just need to see
the parts I didn't yet review.  That is all I asked for above: that
you point me to those unseen parts, or post them separately, whatever
is more convenient.

>  > 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".

That was the clue I was missing.  So everything after this
@subsubheading is the stuff I should review, right?  I will do that
soon.

Thanks.