From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BCFB3846402 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 21:51:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 0BCFB3846402 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 0BCFB3846402 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712267517; cv=none; b=DqzF6AeXRFkO5JBIqm8cAHkNCTAtWi2HZrfv0QRI++p83ORWIyJchaf+3u3tet9KM/o7XHKO8s2W0JnzoUoroYBrT8vDloCwge7EcoXEr9PhhS/X2kjcZAun4ULFsRIerVwHdrK0n78RzYOtmhL+jfG+hJgN25YkLEj6RGYAiSI= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712267517; c=relaxed/simple; bh=d9eJwTkPge6hlQRI+x+xxsdwOr+EeYK2ByXwZK3MlYM=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=X+LbasIM2S7vyiy1I2UdtX7KCqC6tdWhRPtlmyYtCSGR7xR3bMN8zyobWUPsJaia/khZe+xocYl+e1bUmX2v2+UIsuMnfrtCpuun/4eiL+57tzonglUfLhYWdqvJYMwoYbEmFDE3Vy8pcKj8QAgnjLiy3du9cyRBKgKyy8OIehA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1712267513; bh=d9eJwTkPge6hlQRI+x+xxsdwOr+EeYK2ByXwZK3MlYM=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=FSORV8o0RKRtyGKk3EemEOPAYuQEFsApFxmEjwZP5cu8JJqKCVijcWb6taqRPyj3a IKoZ7b9nWzro/sJgzFdUht6mZ5qNMBOkBzGcqfJPn0LPf/qJl3t1w7P+5J7mtlopag YGKuPRoJj5akPV0JackOym36oZaeon2RptyJ6SzQ= Received: from [10.0.0.11] (modemcable238.237-201-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.237.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B61541E030; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8b00edf7-de46-4674-baaa-93fa296febcd@simark.ca> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:51:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Patches submission policy change To: Mark Wielaard , Christophe Lyon Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, GCC Mailing List , gdb@sourceware.org, Nick Clifton , Richard Biener , Jakub Jelinek , Joel Brobecker , Carlos O'Donell , Maxim Kuvyrkov , Thiago Bauermann , Adhemerval Zanella References: <20240404213501.GL19937@gnu.wildebeest.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <20240404213501.GL19937@gnu.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 2024-04-04 17:35, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote: >> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying >> workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so >> that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during the >> last GNU toolchain office hours meeting [1] (2024-03-28). >> >> Benefits or this change include: >> - Increased compatibility with precommit CI >> - No need to manually edit patches before submitting, thus the “git >> send-email” workflow is simplified >> - Patch reviewers can be confident that the committed patch will be >> exactly what they approved >> - Precommit CI can test exactly what has been submitted >> >> Any concerns/objections? > > I am all for it. It will make testing patches easier for everyone. > > I do think we still need a better way to make sure all generated files > can be regenerated. If only to check that the files were generated > correctly with the correct versions. The autoregen buildbots are able > to catch some, but not all such mistakes. > > wrt to the mailinglists maybe getting larger patches, I think most > will still be under 400K and I wouldn't raise the limit (because most > such larger emails are really just spam). But we might want to get > more mailinglist moderators. > > gcc-patches, binutils and gdb-patches all have only one moderator > (Jeff, Ian and Thiago). It would probably be good if there were > more. > > Any volunteers? It shouldn't be more than 1 to 3 emails a week > (sadly most of them spam). I can help with the various gdb mailing lists. Simon