Re: [Fwd: (j3.2006) Fortran 2003 compiler features]

[Bud Davis <bdavis9659 at sbcglobal dot net>]

--- Dominique Dhumieres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
   
> For this example, does not this sound like "nuking a
> fly"?  There are two
> "external" subroutines 'dotest' and 'dotestc' in the
> file and no other file
> supplied in which dotest2 could be present.  Do you
> seriously think that
> gfortran is that bad that it requires three hours of
> regtesting to conclude
> that it is safe to fix the obvious typo?  Does not
> this fall under the
> "obvious rule" with a fix "en passant" by someone
> having the permission?
> If the procedure you are describing in your mail is
> required for this case,
> I understand better why you have so few volunteers.
 

the hard and fast rules about bootstrapping and
regtesting prior to commit is one thing that keeps the
'trunk' from being broken all the time.  gcc has a lot
of people with write access, with different skill
levels, experience, and knowledge; this is one rule
that helps keep us civil with each other.

the smallest and most innocent looking change breaks
things.  been there. done that.  more than once.

your example is extreme, being only a test case.  but
the general case is true... a patch, no matter where
it comes from, takes about 3 hours of wall clock time
for the commiter to deal with.

that's all i have to add.

best wishes,
bud davis