This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [wwwdocs] Update obvious fix commit policy
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Alan Modra <amodra at au1 dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 00:55:36 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Update obvious fix commit policy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAD_=9DS-iwkNjsO_ssrVXFg5aGeRzvkKrtp1hXoxrg90-UKVqw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAD_=9DRnEjDrT_sxscbTJN_Kz0XqQkAV-yd_V6SzYbnj18_Y8w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAD_=9DTWq0F2Z9a0a9fB_u1gTEpB0mHa1JJgbmOzcFO1x-FiFg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc1zAuaWJX-nZp_c2QBiPgY+Oy=g3L5ro+EortH6WsWLoA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAD_=9DQ6mFSskFw6PrpLm8FfxH+nm83EaRNxbpCjM=0MV6H0Zg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> Why remove ChangeLog files, web pages and comments?
I was going to complain about web pages being removed. :-)
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
> -<p>Fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments
> -and similar stuff. Just check in the fix and copy it to
> -<code>gcc-patches</code>. We don't want to get overly anal-retentive
> -about checkin policies.</p>
> +<p>Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval. Just check
> +in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>. A good test to
> +determine whether a fix is obvious: <q>will the person who objects to
> +my work the most be able to find a fault with my fix?</q> 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.</p>
I am in favor of this change.
To some extent, this is more a clarification of what I have seen as
our current policy than a change in policy, though to a laywer-minded
person it surely looks like the latter. Not sure what kind of approval
this needs? Mind it has.
Gerald