This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] DWARF support for .debug_loc offsets
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Petr Sorfa <petrs at caldera dot com>,"gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com" <gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 11 Jul 2002 13:03:10 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] DWARF support for .debug_loc offsets
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207111345420.5583-100000@dberlin.org>
Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> On 11 Jul 2002, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > A procedural nit: putting "PATCH" in the subject line means by
> > convention that you've committed, or are about to commit, the patch in
> > your message. If you're submitting a patch for approval, you should
> > put "RFA" in your subject.
>
> You are aware, that the idea that putting [PATCH] in the line means you
> are committing a patch, is pretty much different than every other
> project?
No, I wasn't aware of that at all.
> Look at GCC, fer instance.
> [PATCH] means it's a patch, to be looked at.
>
> It's very confusing to submit patches to GDB, when it's the only one with
> different procedures.
It seems to me GDB's conventions have been working pretty well, but
maybe that's because we deal with regular contributors. But if there
are, in fact, established, widely-used conventions, then I think GDB
should use them.