From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32628 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2003 21:21:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32558 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2003 21:21:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neon-gw.transmeta.com) (63.209.4.196) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2003 21:21:37 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA30115; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:21:22 -0800 Received: from mailhost.transmeta.com(10.1.1.15) by neon-gw.transmeta.com via smap (V2.1) id xma030105; Tue, 11 Feb 03 13:21:07 -0800 Received: from casey.transmeta.com (casey.transmeta.com [10.10.25.22]) by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1BLLBF07606; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:21:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dje@localhost) by casey.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) id NAA30012; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:21:11 -0800 From: Doug Evans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15945.26951.42925.711904@casey.transmeta.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:21:00 -0000 To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: Dave Brolley , cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch][rfa]@arch@_cgen_ifld_table In-Reply-To: <20030211154104.B14524@redhat.com> References: <3E495AD1.7070305@redhat.com> <20030211154104.B14524@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 Frank Ch. Eigler writes: > Approving your patches seems like an unnecessary formality, > given your understanding and history. Does someone see a > need to avoid recognizing brolley within the maintainers list? Since you're asking ... Yes and no. Even maintainers need their patches approved, or at least discussed, if the change is substantial. As long as there continues to be the proviso that substantial changes get discussed on the list first, sure. I realize that may have been implicit. Just making it explicit.