Re: [commit] mark up quit et.al.

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:31:09 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:15:26PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > FYI,
> > committed,
> > Andrew
> 
> Perhaps you should wait for someone to proofread this sort of thing.

It looks like Andrew has switched to ``commit'em-all-without-asking''
method, even for patches outside of his domain.  When someone posts an
objection about such a policy, that objection is simply ignored.

Here's one more objection that will probably be ignored:

       ANDREW, WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP DOING THAT?


> > @@ -995,7 +995,7 @@ insert_bp_location (struct bp_location *
> >  	}
> >        else
> >  	{
> > -	  printf_filtered ("Hardware watchpoint %d deleted ", bpt->owner->number);
> > +	  printf_filtered (_("Hardware watchpoint %d deleted "), bpt->owner->number);
> >  	  printf_filtered ("because the program has left the block \n");
> >  	  printf_filtered ("in which its expression is valid.\n");
> >  	  if (bpt->owner->related_breakpoint)
> 
> For instance, this one is bogus.

Indeed.  And I have more comments about that patch (working on it as
we speak).  It's beyond me why such a large patch needed to be
committed without asking for a review.