This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc's obvious patch policy
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:21:21 -0500
- Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131120090429 dot GT30563 at lug-owl dot de> <CABu31nOxDcuTvsGVU6YrLmd_ZEkuon8hiUNMoPk466F5WAkOGA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131126051718 dot GQ3588 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> 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
>
> Allowed as obvious in the gcc sources are typo fixes for comments or
> similar, or reverting a bad patch you made. That's it. The power to
> change anything else is reserved to the relevant maintainer.
Huh. That's silly. It allows nothing interesting!
> Can I recommend gdb's obvious patch policy? It even tickles my sense
> of humour. "will the person who hates my work the most be able to
> find fault with the change" - if so, then it's not obvious..
I like this one much better. Anyone else opposed to changing the
obvious-commit policy to something along these lines?
Diego.