Re: [PATCH] target_read_aux_vector

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Roland, not sure why you posted this.  The relevant discussion has still
> >
> > > not been resolved.
> >
> >
> >
> > I like to write code more than I like to speculate about how I will write
> > it.  My favorite sort of discussion about code includes exchanges of 
> > "like
> > this?  [and some code that might work]", "no, different because of foo 
> > and
> > bar", "ok, so like this? [and some different code that might work]", 
> > and so
> > on.  Let's have a discussion like that!
> >
> > I developed one of the alternatives being discussed to flesh out the 
> > issues
> > with doing it that way.  In the process, I noticed that part of it was
> > independently useful (fixing a missing part of gcore functionality).  I
> > posted this patch to demonstrate the utility of this alternative for the
> > purpose we are discussing, and the bonus feature that my patch as posted
> > fixes an existing, separate shortcoming of gdb.  Now discuss!
>
>
> 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.

In fact (now that you mention it), I though I understood that
[PATCH] means "I have applied this patch", as opposed to
"please review my patch".  But what the heck, are these conventions
even written down anywhere?