Re: df.c and partial writes/REG_EQUAL notes

[mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>]

> To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
> Cc: dan@cgsoftware.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:41:38 -0400

> A review of a patch tells you what is necessary to make it acceptable
> for gcc. Not whether a particular person with global write access
> likes it.

I don't see anything evidence that what was done was wrong.  I can't
help but wonder if your expectations of what the process is is flawed
or deficient.  I think you have many unreasonable expectations.

I don't see it as wrong for a maintainer to offer a partial review of
a patch instead of a complete review of the patch.  I don't see it as
wrong if a maintainer only states what you consider is just his
opinion of a patch.  I don't see it as wrong if a maintainer misses a
deficiency of a patch.  I don't see it as wrong if a maintainer uses
different definitions of patch, review, code, correct, or compiler
from you...  I don't see it as wrong if a maintainer doesn't review
a patch.

> Note that a review of the patch would have noticed the documentation
> was deficient.  This is what would make the patch acceptable, for
> the most part, (at least in this case), to other global write
> people.

If that is the case, why are we having this discussion?  Fix the
documentation and have have it accepted.  We can be sure this is the
case, after you do it.

> It is a statement that gives you some indication as to whether
> or not they will review that patch. It is not a review in and of
> itself.

Sounds like a semantic game.  Feel free to submit changes to the web
site that desribe what you discover the process is, so that you will
believe the words are accurate.