From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27860 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2004 04:58:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27843 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2004 04:58:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.31.123) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2004 04:58:42 -0000 Received: by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 29025) id BAD1C4C0355; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:58:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 04:58:00 -0000 From: Zdenek Dvorak To: Roger Sayle Cc: rth@redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping^2 Message-ID: <20040317045841.GA29735@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20040316232130.GA1887@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg01340.txt Hello, > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-02/msg01733.html > > -- doloop optimization rewrite. > > This is Ok for mainline. thanks a lot. > The only reason I didn't approve this patch (with the others) after the > first ping is because you'd Cc'd "rth at redhat dot com" on the original > posting and that reminder. I guessing after two pings, you hadn't > previously arranged with him to examine this patch? > > My apologies if I've committed a "faux pas" reviewing this patch > after only two pings, but Cc'ing maintainers creates a etiquette dilema, > which only slows down the patch review process. Perhaps using Bcc is > safer? oops... sorry, I think it is just a reflex from the times when basically noone but Richard did approve any patches :-) Zdenek From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27860 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2004 04:58:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27843 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2004 04:58:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.31.123) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2004 04:58:42 -0000 Received: by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 29025) id BAD1C4C0355; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:58:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:14:00 -0000 From: Zdenek Dvorak To: Roger Sayle Cc: rth@redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping^2 Message-ID: <20040317045841.GA29735@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20040316232130.GA1887@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01340.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319081400.HOmAw1OiexOPhx3xFg30Xu6PUU80qycgWUoQb75tBl0@z> Hello, > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-02/msg01733.html > > -- doloop optimization rewrite. > > This is Ok for mainline. thanks a lot. > The only reason I didn't approve this patch (with the others) after the > first ping is because you'd Cc'd "rth at redhat dot com" on the original > posting and that reminder. I guessing after two pings, you hadn't > previously arranged with him to examine this patch? > > My apologies if I've committed a "faux pas" reviewing this patch > after only two pings, but Cc'ing maintainers creates a etiquette dilema, > which only slows down the patch review process. Perhaps using Bcc is > safer? oops... sorry, I think it is just a reflex from the times when basically noone but Richard did approve any patches :-) Zdenek