Re: Not actually sending patches

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com>]

On 09/02/2011 09:41, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I agree with Ralf, gcc-patches should be for patches and their review,
>> the mails with svn ci output are just noise, something that can be seen
>> from svn or on gcc-cvs mailing list.
> 
> This is documented in http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html:
> 
> "When you have checked in a patch exactly as it has been approved, you do not 
> need to tell that to people -- including the approver. People interested in 
> when a particular patch is committed can check SVN or the gcc-cvs list."

  However this particular patch was neither reviewed nor approved, but
"committed under simple rule", about which svnwrite.html says:

> Just check in the fix and copy it to gcc-patches.

  (Leaving aside the question of whether that rule really applies to code
changes or not, omitting the patch is particularly tricky in this case since
there's a typo in the PR number.  Also, the changelog entry forgot to mention
the PR number.  So possibly it was reviewed and approved in the PR audit
trail, after all, but I can't tell without seeing it.)

    cheers,
      DaveK