Re: patch applied to sh.c (3rd try)

[Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

amylaar@spamcop.net writes:

> Quoting Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>:
>
>>
>> Being a maintainer of a GCC component does not excuse you from
>> explaining the motivation for your patch, nor reporting how you tested
>> it, nor any of the other contribution requirements.  All it means is,
>> having submitted a patch AS IF you needed approval, you can then check
>> it in without waiting for review.
>
> I thought the patch should be obvious, considering that cc1 won't link
> without it, and it's really something that should have been in
> Nathan Sidwell's patch in the first place.

Sure, it was obvious, but you still have to say so.  Something like

   This patch fixes a bootstrap failure on $TARGET caused by
   $OTHER_PERSON's patch on $DATE.  Committed as obvious.

would have been enough.

>> Also please use text/plain or text/x-patch when attaching patches.
>
> I currently have some problems sending email from home because the
> hard disk where /home was on my main computer is dying.  I haven't found
> any control in the webmail service I'm currently using to make it attach
> text files as text.

Try giving them a ".txt" extension?

zw