[PATCH] update "info scope" with new symtypes
Michael Snyder
msnyder@redhat.com
Wed May 12 00:20:00 GMT 2004
Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, this discussion occurred in 2000 -- I've reviewed it,
>> and it was entirely concerned with the difficulty of *reviewing*
>> patches that included mixed code and whitespace changes.
>
>
>
> Right, and _every_ patch, gets reviewed. It's just that some get
self-reviewed rather than peer-reviwed.
That's clear. I self-reviewed this one, and my
white-space changes did not cause me any discomfort.
> Either way, the contributor is
> expected to meet the same standards.
Andrew, I think you make these 'standards' up to suit your whim.
One thing I know is, I never voted on the one you're claiming
now. The discussion I took part in was about the difficulty of
reviewing other people's patches.
> What we definitly do not do is apply lower standards to self-reviewed
patches.
No? Then how come you made no comment about these patches?
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-01/msg00040.htm
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-01/msg00430.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-05/msg00500.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00905.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-08/msg00404.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-08/msg00413.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-01/msg00663.html
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list