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: "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:40:08 +0000
- Subject: RE: gcc's obvious patch policy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131120090429 dot GT30563 at lug-owl dot de> <5294CCB0 dot 7010706 at redhat dot com> <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D4099330003A4AC8D2 at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com> <12486579 dot sdiQgXsXIt at polaris>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Botcazou [mailto:ebotcazou@adacore.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:33 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Diego Novillo; Jeff Law; Steven Bosscher
> Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy
>
> > Can I make a suggestion that if someone is making an "obvious" change
> > (with the exception of changing non-working code (comments, things
> > inside #if 0, etc)), have a patch on the mailing list for 12-24 hrs.
> > before putting it in? Maybe they could say something like, I will
> > check this in by X time <TIMEZONE> tomorrow since this looks obvious
> > to me. This way if the change hurts someone who is working on a
> > feature in their local machine that is using the existing framework can
> chime in.
>
> I disagree, obvious patches cannot reasonably invalidate the work of others,
> or else they are simply not obvious. At worst they can privatize a public
> function or remove an unused one, but then it's easy to undo that later.
>
Those at worst examples you have mentioned is the ones that scare me. Sometimes when a function becomes private, making it public back again is sometimes an uphill battle. I am not saying they shouldn't commit it, but at least give a heads-up.
This being said, I am Ok with either decision.
> --
> Eric Botcazou