Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 11/26/13 08:21, Diego Novillo wrote:
> 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!
As I've stated within the last few months, I'm certainly open to 
revisiting that policy.  I believe we put that policy in place in circa 
1998 as we started up egcs.

> > 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?
Seems reasonable to me.

jeff