This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: gcc's obvious patch policy
- From: "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:14:22 +0000
- Subject: RE: gcc's obvious patch policy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131120090429 dot GT30563 at lug-owl dot de> <CABu31nOxDcuTvsGVU6YrLmd_ZEkuon8hiUNMoPk466F5WAkOGA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131126051718 dot GQ3588 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAD_=9DTkvO6=17jN9-1SQqvfLg605HBu75bi0cJ0rKRwAW0dAg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5294CCB0 dot 7010706 at redhat dot com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:31 AM
> To: Diego Novillo; Steven Bosscher; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy
>
> On 11/26/13 08:21, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR On
> >> Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >>> This patch is obvious and it fixes breakage. Please go ahead and commit
> it.
> >>
> >> Sorry to pick on you here Steven, but this doesn't meet gcc's
> >> definition of an obvious patch. Don't believe me? See
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html#policies
> >>
> >> Allowed as obvious in the gcc sources are typo fixes for comments or
> >> similar, or reverting a bad patch you made. That's it. The power to
> >> change anything else is reserved to the relevant maintainer.
> >
> > Huh. That's silly. It allows nothing interesting!
> As I've stated within the last few months, I'm certainly open to revisiting that
> policy. I believe we put that policy in place in circa
> 1998 as we started up egcs.
>
> >
> >> Can I recommend gdb's obvious patch policy? It even tickles my sense
> >> of humour. "will the person who hates my work the most be able to
> >> find fault with the change" - if so, then it's not obvious..
> >
> > I like this one much better. Anyone else opposed to changing the
> > obvious-commit policy to something along these lines?
> Seems reasonable to me.
>
Can I make a suggestion that if someone is making an "obvious" change (with the exception of changing non-working code (comments, things inside #if 0, etc)), have a patch on the mailing list for 12-24 hrs. before putting it in? Maybe they could say something like, I will check this in by X time <TIMEZONE> tomorrow since this looks obvious to me. This way if the change hurts someone who is working on a feature in their local machine that is using the existing framework can chime in.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
> jeff