From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23828 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2011 18:47:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 23819 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2011 18:47:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (HELO mailout-de.gmx.net) (213.165.64.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:47:12 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2011 18:47:03 -0000 Received: from xdsl-89-0-140-167.netcologne.de (EHLO localhost.localdomain) [89.0.140.167] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 18 Apr 2011 20:47:03 +0200 Received: from ralf by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QBtTP-00075m-IG; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:46:59 +0200 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:59:00 -0000 From: Ralf Wildenhues To: Jim Meyering Cc: Mike Stump , Gerald Pfeifer , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] doubled words Message-ID: <20110418184659.GG26439@gmx.de> Mail-Followup-To: Ralf Wildenhues , Jim Meyering , Mike Stump , Gerald Pfeifer , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: <87aafsq66f.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <892EA220-2EC7-4DAD-9089-73168984DB2A@comcast.net> <77B8DA3F-4856-435E-B7FB-09922B2775C1@comcast.net> <8739lf7elo.fsf@rho.meyering.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8739lf7elo.fsf@rho.meyering.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg01440.txt.bz2 Hi Jim, * Jim Meyering wrote on Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 05:40:03PM CEST: > Mike Stump wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Gerald Pfeifer 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... > If you hadn't said anything, I would have committed those typo fixes > by now, based on what I perceived as your review/approval and on my > reading of this part of http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html: > > Free for all [...] > If that policy is no longer in effect or does not apply here, > can you clarify or point to a more up to date policy? All I know, the policy hasn't changed. I think there's been a bit of splitting hairs involved. There can be times when it is unclear whether something is obvious or not. Even when obvious, it can sometimes be nice not to push forward when somebody is about to merge a big branch, or even forbidden ("freeze" mode, e.g., to make a release). Your changes are about as obvious as they can get. Reviewers will complain once obviousness-borderline gets visible (or an "obvious" patch starts breaking a build ;-). But we should remember that the obviousness rule also exists so that reviewers don't even _need_ to take a look; with "is this obvious?", effectively they do again, eliminating that advantage. Cheers, (and yes, all IMVHO) Ralf