This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] doubled words

From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
Cc: Jim Meyering <jim at meyering dot net>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:30:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doubled words
References: <87aafsq66f.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <892EA220-2EC7-4DAD-9089-73168984DB2A@comcast.net> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1104161258550.6474@gerinyyl.fvgr>

On Apr 16, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Mike Stump wrote:
>> I think these are obvious.
> 
> Which means that you can commit them without getting explicit approval

Well, technically, it means nothing...  It only means something if the maintainer agrees with me, which in general we won't know until they weighing.  Any person that checks in under that rule runs the risk of a, no it isn't.  Now, if we had an obviousness maintainer, they could just approve it; we'd only need a wave of a magic wand to get one.  :-)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] doubled words
  - From: Jim Meyering

References:
- [PATCH] doubled words
  - From: Jim Meyering
- Re: [PATCH] doubled words
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: [PATCH] doubled words
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]