Re: [PATCH] update "info scope" with new symtypes

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:

>>
>> Anyway, this discussion occurred in 2000 -- I've reviewed it,
>> and it was entirely concerned with the difficulty of *reviewing*
>> patches that included mixed code and whitespace changes.
>
>
>
> Right, and _every_ patch, gets reviewed.  It's just that some get 
self-reviewed rather than peer-reviwed.

That's clear.  I self-reviewed this one, and my
white-space changes did not cause me any discomfort.

> Either way, the contributor is
> expected to meet the same standards.


Andrew, I think you make these 'standards' up to suit your whim.
One thing I know is, I never voted on the one you're claiming
now.  The discussion I took part in was about the difficulty of
reviewing other people's patches.

> What we definitly do not do is apply lower standards to self-reviewed 
patches.

No?  Then how come you made no comment about these patches?


http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-01/msg00040.htm
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-01/msg00430.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-05/msg00500.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00905.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-08/msg00404.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-08/msg00413.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-01/msg00663.html