This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: [PATCH 0/5] improve trace gap handling

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Alves []
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:11 PM
> To: Yao Qi <>; Metzger, Markus T
> <>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] improve trace gap handling
> On 10/27/2016 04:03 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Metzger, Markus T
> > <> wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't we want patches to be peer reviewed in general?  Or are you
> >> saying that I can and should make changes to record-btrace without
> >> review?
> >
> > No, I am not saying that... :-)  Peer review is always welcome.  As we
> > said in MAINTAINERS:
> >
> > "All maintainers are encouraged to post major patches to the gdb-patches
> > mailing list for comments, even if they have the authority to commit the
> > patch without review from another maintainer."
> >
> > You, as a "responsible maintainer" for btrace, can/should review all
> > patches in the area of btrace, including patches written by yourself.
> >
> > I think all these rules are of a purpose of having a healthy code base
> > with an efficient way.  It helps nothing to block patches for three
> > months due to lack of peer review.
> >
> > You must post your patches for review, and you have the authority
> > to approve the btrace bits.  You can leave your patches for a period
> > of time, one week for example, in mail list to collect comments and
> > objections.
> >
> I definitely agree.  It's because we trust you and think you're
> competent that we made you btrace maintainer.  :-)
> FWIW, I've quickly skimmed the patches now looking for something
> that I might even have input on, and I found nothing.  Regarding
> style and following GDB practices, I think your patches are
> consistently perfect.

OK, thanks.  Then I'm going to self-approve this patch series.  Thanks,
Pedro, for skimming over it.  I have another small fix I'm going to post
for a week or two - it's almost obvious.

The other patch series I have posted some time ago contains changes
to infrun, record (full), and the MI test suite.  It generally impacts the
behavior of MI.  I'm going to ping this one again.


Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0,
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]