Re: [PATCH, tree-dce]: DCE enh to handle dead calls (not pure)

["Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google dot com>]

Steven/Richard:

Wow, what a big mess I have created :( SORRY about that.

Steven, I now understand where you anger came from. You probably felt
that I checked in the code anyway after you said 'avoiding checking ..
with small issues' -- there was unfortunate timing -- the change was
approved by Diego (maybe I forgot to mention it in the first patch
email?), and I checked in the patch right after I sent out the
gcc-patch email before your comments.

I planned to address issues addressed by you and Richard (the only
functional one is the optimization size). The first step planned is
the one which I thought does not need approval:

" Free for all

The following changes can be made by everyone with SVN write access:

Fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments
and similar stuff. Just check in the fix and copy it to gcc-patches.
We don't want to get overly anal-retentive about checkin policies.

Similarly, no outside approval is needed to revert a patch that you
checked in."

My understanding for this paragraph may be wrong, but I got the
impression that  no approval is needed.

This is a certainly a very unusual learning experience for me (a
little shocked actually), especially on the emphasis of coding style
(and code quality is judged on that?). This (coding style) used to be
the least concern of me (I emphasize more on assertion, defensive
programming etc) -- ok when it is similar enough (Diego actually
helped me find lots of violations).  Now I realize this is inherited
deeply and is part of the gcc culture (probably one of the reasons
that makes gcc great and last so long), and I need to adapt myself to
that -- even though I may continue to make silly coding style mistakes
in the future.

I will continue to make changes to make sure the previous changes
matches the coding standard, but if you do insist I revert it, I can
do that too.

Thanks a lot for your feedbacks. I have learned a lot from it.

David




On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The idea is of this patch is really nice. But please try to avoid
>> submitting patches with so many silly little issues!
>
> Wow, you checked this in?!
>
> I see this patch was checked in as r135463.  But as far as I can tell,
> it was not approved.  Please revert it.
>
> This was one of the poorest patch submissions I have ever seen.  The
> quality of the patch itself was way below par and the whole submission
> procedure was done incorrectly.
>
> Your patch is not approved, and should not be approved in this state.
> Even with the fixes, you still don't properly use the GCC coding
> style, and you haven't addressed all comments like e.g. my
> optimize_size_comment.
>
> I do not understand why you get SVN write access if you:
> a) do not understand the process of committing patches
> b) submit patches of clearly inferior quality
> c) recklessly commit patches without approval.
>
> In the past, commit rights for the GCC repository were only given to
> people who regularly submitted good patches, and who had shown with
> prior patch submissions that they understood the GCC patch process.  I
> understand that nowadays commit rights are given away much more
> easily, but you have *never* submitted a patch before, and you clearly
> don't understand the process either.  You just abused your commit
> rights. If you don't know how things work, you should just not have
> commit rights yet.
>
> Diego, why do you sponsors people from your team if you are not sure
> they deserve commit rights and know what is expected of them?
>
> Please revert r135463, and also your follow-up r135493.
>
> Gr.
> Steven
>