Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

[Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:01:23AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Alan Modra 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
> 
> Hmm.... I guess the patch will have to be reverted, then :-)
> 
> Or maybe this would be under the banner of "We don't want to get
> overly anal-retentive about checkin policies."

We are not amused.  Some lack-wit adviser told us it would be wise to
not seem anal-retentive, whatever that means, and thus we allowed
comment fixes against our better judgement.  Don't you dare extend our
magnanimous dispensation.  :-)

> In any case, it's not unprecedented that obviously obvious patches get
> checked in even if they're not obvious according to that policy. To
> list a few from just this month:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02989.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02975.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02970.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02972.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02496.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02331.html

Oh no!  There I am, listed with a bunch of other sinners.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM