From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24710 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2014 15:51:48 -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 24622 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jan 2014 15:51:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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 ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:51:47 +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 s0FFpiBa004150 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:51:44 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-85.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.85]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0FFpgW4004913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:51:43 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: small request regarding commits in binutils-gdb.git References: <20140115121251.GM4639@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:51:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20140115121251.GM4639@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:12:51 +0400") Message-ID: <871u09tf8x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00509.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> I am also considering the idea of writing a small hook that Joel> would reject new commits introducing commits where the "empty line Joel> after subject" rule is not followed. Would that be an acceptable Joel> restriction? It would be fine by me. Tom