From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1717 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2014 16:27:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1708 invoked by uid 89); 22 Sep 2014 16:27:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:27:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8MGRAnc012775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:27:11 -0400 Received: from stumpy.slc.redhat.com (ovpn-113-38.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.38]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8MGRALb020810; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:27:10 -0400 Message-ID: <54204DDE.6050600@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:42:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan-Benedict Glaw , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able References: <87r3z33g2q.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <20140922143504.GE4144@lug-owl.de> In-Reply-To: <20140922143504.GE4144@lug-owl.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00314.txt.bz2 On 09/22/14 08:35, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > On Mon, 2014-09-22 16:06:21 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> As has been noted before, >> , >> GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilkrts, or >> GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally. Shouldn't it? I regularely >> consult this file when reporting issues in specific parts of the GCC code >> base. > > While we're at it... > > I consult that file as well, even quite often for preparing Build > Robot emails. There's another usability enhancement: I'd like to > propose to put all email addresses between '<' and '>', which would > quite ease cut'n'past-ability. What's your oppinion on that? Should I > prepare a patch? Sure. Jeff