From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5835 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2013 07:11:14 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 5823 invoked by uid 89); 20 Nov 2013 07:11:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx02.qsc.de Received: from Unknown (HELO mx02.qsc.de) (213.148.130.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:11:11 +0000 Received: from archimedes.net-b.de (port-92-194-223-135.dynamic.qsc.de [92.194.223.135]) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54673278AB; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:11:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <528C6085.9090905@net-b.de> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:36:00 -0000 From: Tobias Burnus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.patches To: Philippe Baril Lecavalier , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org CC: gerald@pfeifer.com Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Broken links References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg02462.txt.bz2 Am 20.11.2013 06:00, schrieb Philippe Baril Lecavalier: > +

If you do not have commit access, please send an email to + href="mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org">gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > +and CC gerald@pfeifer.com, > +with the following:

> + > +
    > +
  • Secify [wwwwdocs] in the subject header.
    • "Specify" > +
  • Description of your patch and list of modified files.
    • > + > +
  • Mention the fact that you do not have commit access (why you do > +this).
    • I don't understand sentence in parenthesis. Should they explain why they don't have commit access? Note that even with commit access one also sends patches to gcc-patches@ for review; hence, there is no real difference in this regard. Tobias