Re: gcc/gcc/ada ChangeLog gnat_rm.texi

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Richard Kenner wrote:

>     I think you should - there's no special case in contribute.html (which now
>     makes clear that it applies to maintainers) for newly contributed files.
> 
> Well I think there should be such a special case.  I can see absolutely no
> valid reason to clutter up people's mail files with files they can trivially
> pick up (and will anyway).  A message mentioning they were added seems quite
> reasonable, but I see no purpose that would be accomplished by sending out
> hundreds of copies of such files.

New files are patches to GCC, just like other patches, and are just as
subject to having defects that may be spotted on reading by the readership
of gcc-patches.  They should be sent out - with all other information
required by contribute.html (why the file is added, history/motivation,
ChangeLog entry, details of tested targets, ...) - to put them together
with the other changes for readers to comment on, rather then needing to
track separately both what messages to gcc-patches have been considered
and where appropriate responded to, and what new files in CVS need the
same treatment.  If gcc-cvs-patches (other/1634) is ever implemented then
this could be reconsidered.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk