From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15155 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2013 16:30:52 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 15144 invoked by uid 89); 26 Nov 2013 16:30:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:30:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAQGUePs029283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:30:41 -0500 Received: from stumpy.slc.redhat.com (ovpn-113-65.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.65]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAQGUeh2028513; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:30:40 -0500 Message-ID: <5294CCB0.7010706@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:16:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Diego Novillo , Steven Bosscher , gcc-patches Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy References: <20131120090429.GT30563@lug-owl.de> <20131126051718.GQ3588@bubble.grove.modra.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg03388.txt.bz2 On 11/26/13 08:21, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:17 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 >> >> Allowed as obvious in the gcc sources are typo fixes for comments or >> similar, or reverting a bad patch you made. That's it. The power to >> change anything else is reserved to the relevant maintainer. > > Huh. That's silly. It allows nothing interesting! As I've stated within the last few months, I'm certainly open to revisiting that policy. I believe we put that policy in place in circa 1998 as we started up egcs. > >> Can I recommend gdb's obvious patch policy? It even tickles my sense >> of humour. "will the person who hates my work the most be able to >> find fault with the change" - if so, then it's not obvious.. > > I like this one much better. Anyone else opposed to changing the > obvious-commit policy to something along these lines? Seems reasonable to me. jeff