This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc's obvious patch policy
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:34:07 -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> <CABu31nN60SQyQmmMW1g4hh3s65eEfdgtxZO85FisoZYjvfxjCQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131126102146 dot GA9211 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAGWvnykdxn_e2rUgv2J5=arwRopijw5UB9XTKpP04bVb6guD7g at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131127013705 dot GF9211 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Alan Modra <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I find this whole thread a rather sad and pathetic bikeshed
>> discussion. Regardless of the formal policy, the basic concept is to
>> use common sense. Common sense about the context of the code being
>> changed, common sense about the patch itself, and common sense about
>> the maintenance area and the maintainers.
>> Anything more than that is people trying to create / change rules as a
>> stick to hit each other over the head or a straight jacket to tie each
>> other up.
> I find this a bit rich coming from you, David. On the weekend I
> committed a patch as obvious, for which you "hit me over the head",
> stating in no uncertain terms that I should not bypass you and commit
> patches like that as "obvious". I still think the substance of the
> patch was obvious for anyone who has worked on the powerpc backend for
> as long as I have, but after some discussion I backed down because
> technically, you were within your rights and I had transgressed the
> You have the stick *now*. And wield it. I'm trying to take it away
> from you..
I privately asked you not to commit obvious patches to the port
because there was no reason to rush the patch as "obvious". There are
a lot of changes happening to the port from many directions and I am
trying to prevent unintended conflict from destabilizing the port.
You're the one turning this into a public issue and making it personal.