From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22805 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2013 15:22:27 -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 22750 invoked by uid 89); 26 Nov 2013 15:22:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ie0-f169.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-ie0-f169.google.com) (209.85.223.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:21:29 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e14so9687579iej.0 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:21:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=FQqDLQbkUpp/+X75cRxKue1kUEobXpiExWZNQEZVixs=; b=fKJHWK6JVoA2FV42fFVd2F67dISlJyfDn9DlH6PsPnh6dl/BqKrJ6phkQ9wJA8r8ye Yr4EZhEHELdAHKroy4Pzhmj0ab2EebXzXPbcolE925wvbG5L3ZS2wo+UXTIe0KYomH6x vJVh9jiVx0ynYuCAKfCTXJ3/R00yqq71r4tvMIOjJgXiXYt9nqoDjQi1sOUv1V4Cl19X gKswsE/+bDbTRJHcVJHQob9wGu+zoDc9s/lNkFT3KQ7vO+1OMcjHG7p20l3f5LkdNMwD 5P7UoeBTgu7HowcNGOstwkcmRFEvR2XgcyMqvsHLXhtcqm5AGxTcb6eapIkODRR/0PD3 W+4g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlkiT4SW6MdgLPKfHa14movhFag1B9vHRZRZ6RELIi2uCbeAQM69CaayU266RQ8V+KFctEb27F2/8uqnKLGPKRDrwdpbyERSJOtaeGsPlxIMy28KlxrM+JMKtjVkWmUH0CCFzh40ozi1na4yh4EQvQdLRD+tSwOwS8IXR3tW3EvM7X82+xFUF1mqRPu4gqCetoubjfw+F1w7y6wrEH0H6eAJ0CUzQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.8.66 with SMTP id or2mr20417037icb.19.1385479281977; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:21:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.14.97 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:21:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131126051718.GQ3588@bubble.grove.modra.org> References: <20131120090429.GT30563@lug-owl.de> <20131126051718.GQ3588@bubble.grove.modra.org> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy From: Diego Novillo To: Steven Bosscher , gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg03382.txt.bz2 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! > 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? Diego.