Re: [PATCH] doubled words

[Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>]

Hi Jim,

* Jim Meyering wrote on Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 05:40:03PM CEST:
> Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Mike Stump wrote:
> >>> I think these are obvious.
> >>
> >> Which means that you can commit them without getting explicit approval
> >
> > Well, technically, it means nothing...

> If you hadn't said anything, I would have committed those typo fixes
> by now, based on what I perceived as your review/approval and on my
> reading of this part of http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html:
> 
>     Free for all
[...]
> If that policy is no longer in effect or does not apply here,
> can you clarify or point to a more up to date policy?

All I know, the policy hasn't changed.  I think there's been a bit of
splitting hairs involved.  There can be times when it is unclear whether
something is obvious or not.  Even when obvious, it can sometimes be
nice not to push forward when somebody is about to merge a big branch,
or even forbidden ("freeze" mode, e.g., to make a release).

Your changes are about as obvious as they can get.  Reviewers will
complain once obviousness-borderline gets visible (or an "obvious"
patch starts breaking a build ;-).  But we should remember that the
obviousness rule also exists so that reviewers don't even _need_ to
take a look; with "is this obvious?", effectively they do again,
eliminating that advantage.

Cheers, (and yes, all IMVHO)
Ralf