From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24912 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 17:13:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24900 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 17:13:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (69.3.5.6) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 17:13:16 -0000 Received: from [128.164.132.31] (account dberlin HELO dberlin.org) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP-TLS id 2901297; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:13:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:13:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Zaretskii Eli , Daniel Jacobowitz , Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com To: Andrew Cagney From: Daniel Berlin In-Reply-To: <3E55011F.8090801@redhat.com> Message-Id: <985D4E42-44F6-11D7-8EF7-000393575BCC@dberlin.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00422.txt.bz2 On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 11:23 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Daniel Berlin, > > You and your track record are a case in point for why it is important > to for GDB developers to both receive and respect peer review. I find > it extreamly ironic that you, of all people, should be arguing that > the system is stifling. > And finally, I find it extremely ironic that, you, a person whose main complaint with me was that i wouldn't take criticism and i didn't respect peer review from people i apparently didn't respect, won't take criticism or respect peer review from people he apparently doesn't respect. Pot, kettle, black. --Dan