This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [libstd++] current tuple ebco patch

From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:05:48 +0100
Subject: Re: [libstd++] current tuple ebco patch
References: <14229273.post@talk.nabble.com> <475C376B.4010206@suse.de> <fac6bb500712091230p1cf2968cg6a14e5b58f245859@mail.gmail.com> <20071210112858.5d8652c0@concorde.artheist.org> <475D7B06.5090608@suse.de> <4348dea50712101231m2e8c1915o5ceb2b23cca2501d@mail.gmail.com>

Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I'm not subscribed to gcc-patches, because I'm not interested in 90%
> of it, so I've been surprised by some libstdc++ changes that I missed
> because they only went to gcc-patches.  Not that "don't surprise jon"
> should be a rule of course! but the contributor checklist _does_ still
> say all patches should go to both lists :)
>   
Oh well, personally I don't have any real problem with that, a CC costs
nothing on my side. In the past, often, we consistently sent patches to
libstdc++ only when a discussion was in order or the approval of a
maintainer was needed. I can definitely try to always CC to libstdc++ if
people like that.

Paolo.

References:
- Re: [libstd++] current tuple ebco patch
  - From: Chris Fairles
- Re: [libstd++] current tuple ebco patch
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: [libstd++] current tuple ebco patch
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [libstd++] current tuple ebco patch
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]