From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 65119 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2017 10:21:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 65018 invoked by uid 89); 27 Feb 2017 10:21:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:998, emails, policy X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:21:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFE08148A; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:21:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R1UAaLJdaCbR; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:21:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from dhcp-guest-231.act-europe.fr (dhcp-guest-231.act-europe.fr [10.10.127.231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5D678146E; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:21:01 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: binutils-2_28-branch: Various RISC-V Fixes From: Tristan Gingold In-Reply-To: <20170224174232.13170-1-palmer@dabbelt.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:21:00 -0000 Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, Andrew Waterman Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <93046857-508E-4560-8C37-3CEC91ABE441@adacore.com> References: <20170224174232.13170-1-palmer@dabbelt.com> To: Palmer Dabbelt X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 > On 24 Feb 2017, at 18:42, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >=20 > Here are the three RISC-V patches that aren't on the 2.28 branch but are = on > master. One has been submitted for 2.28, but I haven't gotten any feedba= ck, > while the other two are new. >=20 > We'd really like these in the release so we can build Linux with the 2.28 > release rather that having to tell the Linux devs to patch it or get binu= tils > master. >=20 > Are these OK for the 2.28 branch? >=20 > Also: I'd like to check on the policy for commiting to 2.28. I haven't g= otten > any feedback on my "OK for 2.28?" messages recently and I was told that I > needed an OK for the 2.28 branch from Tristan Gingold. I haven't seen an= y mail > from Tristan Gingold recently, but when I went to rebase I saw a bunch of > patches committed. Am I asking for approval incorrectly? Yes, they are OK. You are asking correctly, but I have a backlog of emails to read. Sorry! Thanks, Tristan.