Re: write w/o approval policy (Re: [PATCH] clarify comments for implicit_p flag for built-ins)

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 11/28/18 11:39 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/28/18 6:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:52 AM Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01759.html
>>>
>>> If there are no objections or suggestions for tweaks I'll commit
>>> this updated comment this week.
>>
>> Please do not commit such changes w/o approval.
> 
> Since you're the second maintainer to ask me that in response
> to a patch to update comments I'd like to get some clarity here.
> 
> I have been assuming that the GCC Write access policy (quoted
> below) lets those of us with write-after-approval make a judgment
> call as to when a change is sufficiently safe to commit:
> 
>   Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval.  Just
>   check in the fix and copy it to gcc-patches. A good test to
>   determine whether a fix is obvious: "will the person who
>   objects to my work the most be able to find a fault with my
>   fix?"  If the fix is later found to be faulty, it can always
>   be rolled back. We don't want to get overly restrictive about
>   checkin policies.
> 
>   (https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/svnwrite.html#policies)
> 
> If we are not at liberty to make this judgment call in even
> the most innocuous cases like comments, when does this policy
> actually apply?  (It should be updated to make it clear.)
The thing is I looked at the patch and it was far from obvious what was
going on.  Thus I put it in my queue of things to dig deeper into.  I
haven't done that digging yet.

Comments are actually important.  They often describe what the code is
supposed to do, rationale, historical context, etc.  Just because we're
changing a comment doesn't mean it's inherently trivial/obvious.

I'm generally supportive of lessening friction for developers and I
welcome proposals to do that.

Jeff