This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: "obvious" requirements


On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 11:20:00AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2003, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > I'd like to make a obvious fix to tree.c (i.e., remove a blank
> > line).  Should I add an entry to the ChangeLog and/or post the
> > patch to gcc-patches?
> 
> ChangeLog? Dunno about such a corner case.

So ChangeLog entries are sometimes required...

> gcc-patches? Definitely, though it's fine after the fact for obvious
> changes.

...and postings to gcc-patches are always required.

OK to commit the following?

-- 
Matt Kraai <kraai@alumni.cmu.edu>
Debian GNU/Linux Peon

*** cvswrite.html.~1.52.~	Wed Mar 26 13:18:35 2003
--- cvswrite.html	Mon May 19 08:05:30 2003
***************
*** 135,142 ****
  
  <p>Also note that fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs,
  web pages, comments and similar stuff need not be approved.  Just
! check in the fix.  We don't want to get overly anal about checkin
! policies.</p>
  
  <p>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.
--- 135,142 ----
  
  <p>Also note that fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs,
  web pages, comments and similar stuff need not be approved.  Just
! check in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>.  We don't
! want to get overly anal about checkin policies.</p>
  
  <p>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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]