From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10047 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2015 18:42:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 10024 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2015 18:42:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients 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; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:42:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0GIgZRt016700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:42:36 -0500 Received: from anchor.twiddle.net (vpn-227-132.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.227.132]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0GIgZP0008505; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:42:35 -0500 Message-ID: <54B95B9A.3030408@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:42:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker , Binutils , gdb-patches Subject: Re: Experimental branches References: <20141223132714.GA11973@adacore.com> <20141223180802.GP12884@adacore.com> <20141224002022.GQ12884@adacore.com> <20150115235652.GU23768@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20150116031811.GR8167@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20150116031811.GR8167@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2 On 01/15/2015 07:18 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> We also seem to be getting a full diff on binutils-cvs rather than the >> summary we used to have. > > That one is actually intentional. I really think that those diffs > are really useful - at least to me - and this was discussed a bit > when I made the proposal to switch to the new hooks. Do you think > they are a problem? Are they really useful? There's always the link at the top of the commit email that allows you to view the diff. r~