Re: [PATCH] target_read_aux_vector

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > In that case, can I suggest posting such things as [wip]
> > (work-in-progress).  That way it's clear that the change is intended
> > as a discussion point, and not a final waiting-on-approval patch.  It
> > unfortunatly comes across as very strange when someone posts what
> > looks like the final [rfa] for for a specific variant of a change when
> > the related technical discussion has not been resolved.
>
>
> A WIP marker is nice, but I don't agree it's somehow an affront to
> post a patch in the middle of a discussion.  Even if Roland had
> intended it as a final RFA, everyone should be willing to consider
> changes to their patches --- even after they've been committed.
>
> Being inflexible, making unreasonable demands, and things like that
> are what's offensive.

Jim,

Even if Roland doesn't use [wip], I'll now know what his intent was (and 
due credit to roland for taking the time to explain it) and understand 
the purpose.  However, come the future, others may not realise this and 
may also be confused.

As you know there is unfortunatly something of a history between Roland 
and various GDB developers, and that can be attributed at least in part 
to poor communication.  If we can find better and clearer ways to 
communicate than we will all benefit.

Andrew