From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 93234 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2018 17:37:27 -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 93221 invoked by uid 89); 5 Dec 2018 17:37:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=claer, requesting, toplevel X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:37:25 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) id 1gUb6u-0004EU-8J from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 09:37:20 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.90) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 17:37:16 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gUb6q-0001Zu-Aq; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:37:16 +0000 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:37:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Segher Boessenkool CC: =?KOI8-R?B?5MnM0c4g8MHMwdXaz9c=?= , gcc-patches Subject: Re: Make claer, when contributions will be ignored In-Reply-To: <20181205171121.GQ3803@gate.crashing.org> Message-ID: References: <25a0e5620b1e8a7a831ae9660c988f5dd98aa7dd.camel@aegee.org> <20181205171121.GQ3803@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00299.txt.bz2 On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Patches are usually ignored because everyone thinks someone else will > handle it. And in this case, it looks like this patch would best be reviewed first in the GDB context - then once committed to binutils-gdb, the committer could post to gcc-patches (CC:ing build system maintainers) requesting a commit to GCC if they don't have write access to GCC themselves. I consider synchronizing changes to such top-level files in either direction to be obvious and not to need a separate review. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com