RE: gcc's obvious patch policy

["Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji.v.iyer@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Botcazou [mailto:ebotcazou@adacore.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:33 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Diego Novillo; Jeff Law; Steven Bosscher
> Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy
> 
> > Can I make a suggestion that if someone is making an "obvious" change
> > (with the exception of changing non-working code (comments, things
> > inside #if 0, etc)), have a patch on the mailing list for 12-24 hrs.
> > before putting it in? Maybe they could say something like, I will
> > check this in by X time <TIMEZONE> tomorrow since this looks obvious
> > to me. This way if the change hurts someone who is working on a
> > feature in their local machine that is using the existing framework can
> chime in.
> 
> I disagree, obvious patches cannot reasonably invalidate the work of others,
> or else they are simply not obvious.  At worst they can privatize a public
> function or remove an unused one, but then it's easy to undo that later.
> 

Those at worst examples you have mentioned is the ones that scare me. Sometimes when a function becomes private, making it public back again is sometimes an uphill battle. I am not saying they shouldn't commit it, but at least give a heads-up.

This being said, I am Ok with either decision.

> --
> Eric Botcazou