Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

[Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> This patch is obvious and it fixes breakage. Please go ahead and commit it.
>
> Sorry to pick on you here Steven, but this doesn't meet gcc's
> definition of an obvious patch.  Don't believe me?  See
> http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html#policies

Hmm.... I guess the patch will have to be reverted, then :-)

Or maybe this would be under the banner of "We don't want to get
overly anal-retentive about checkin policies."

In any case, it's not unprecedented that obviously obvious patches get
checked in even if they're not obvious according to that policy. To
list a few from just this month:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02989.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02975.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02970.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02972.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02496.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02331.html

So perhaps the policy should include a line about fixing trivial
breakage from recent check-ins.

Ciao!
Steven