[PATCH] target_read_aux_vector

[Jim Blandy]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> In that case, can I suggest posting such things as [wip]
> (work-in-progress).  That way it's clear that the change is intended
> as a discussion point, and not a final waiting-on-approval patch.  It
> unfortunatly comes across as very strange when someone posts what
> looks like the final [rfa] for for a specific variant of a change when
> the related technical discussion has not been resolved.

A WIP marker is nice, but I don't agree it's somehow an affront to
post a patch in the middle of a discussion.  Even if Roland had
intended it as a final RFA, everyone should be willing to consider
changes to their patches --- even after they've been committed.

Being inflexible, making unreasonable demands, and things like that
are what's offensive.