From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18559 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2006 21:58:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 18549 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2006 21:58:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:58:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBLLwA8s015904; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:58:10 -0500 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBLLwALg026595; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:58:10 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBLLw8dd015051; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:58:09 -0500 Message-ID: <458B0370.4040800@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:58:00 -0000 From: Diego Novillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Berlin CC: Daniel Franke , gerald@pfeifer.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [patch, libgomp, docs] adding documentation to libgomp References: <200611240009.37566.franke.daniel@gmail.com> <456CC7E6.4060304@redhat.com> <200611302158.38446.franke.daniel@gmail.com> <200612102252.26721.franke.daniel@gmail.com> <4aca3dc20612101758y2438d4afu1a789c2b1c134034@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4aca3dc20612101758y2438d4afu1a789c2b1c134034@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg01524.txt.bz2 Daniel Berlin wrote on 12/10/06 20:58: > Diego, just an FYI, I believe you can approve patches to docs that are > for area you maintain. > > Or is it that we just are allowed to modify them. > > Gerald, can you clarify (and review this kind person's texinfo formatting)? > Daniel just pointed out to me this paragraph from http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html "Maintainers of a port maintain the files in config/port/, the configure fragments for the port, documentation for the port and test cases for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ features or bugs specific to this port. Port maintainers do not have approval rights in other files." I think that solves the issue. Daniel, your patch is fine. If I overstepped any boundaries, maybe we should clarify this a bit more.