From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26552 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2003 20:41:06 -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 26521 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2003 20:41:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2003 20:41:05 -0000 Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (toenail.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.211]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982C380004E; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from fche@localhost) by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1BKf4U17988; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:41:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:41:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Dave Brolley , cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch][rfa]@arch@_cgen_ifld_table Message-ID: <20030211154104.B14524@redhat.com> References: <3E495AD1.7070305@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3E495AD1.7070305@redhat.com>; from brolley@redhat.com on Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:19:29PM -0500 X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 Hi - brolley wrote: > [...] > This has been tested on fr30 and on our internal port. > Seeking approval to commit. Looks fine to me. 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? - FChE