Re: [patch] fix for infinite recursion in lookup_symbol

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:21:18PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >
> >On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> >
> >> if any opposition causes the rejection of a patch, any individual
> >> can make his/her preferences prevail by systematically "opposing" to patches
> >> that go against his believes.
> >
> >I assume that individuals with such attitude are absent from this fine
> >forum.  I have yet to see any sign of such an approach from anyone here.
> >
> >Therefore, I don't think we need to consider such a possibility as a
> >real one.
>
> I agree.  I was really thinking of this as a special case situation where
> we could get patches into gdb when the patch maintainer is inexplicably
> absent.
>
> If *anyone* disagrees with the patch then it shouldn't go in.
>

Of course. But you have to admit, the situation we just had, as Jim
pointed out, makes GDB look *really* bad.
Maybe some rule about checking "obvious" bug fixes in that relate to
*your* earlier patches?
That way, you ccan fix something that your patch may have broke
accidently, as long as the fix is obvious?
I'm assuming you waited a week, and heard no response from a maintainer at
all, but no opposition from anyone else, either.


I'm not trying to handle large patches here, just 2 or 3 line fixes that
can have a major effect.
--Dan