"obvious" requirements

"obvious" requirements

[Matt Kraai]

Howdy,

I'd like to make a obvious fix to tree.c (i.e., remove a blank
line).  Should I add an entry to the ChangeLog and/or post the
patch to gcc-patches?

-- 
Matt Kraai <kraai@alumni.cmu.edu>
Debian GNU/Linux Peon

Re: "obvious" requirements

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Matt Kraai wrote:
> I'd like to make a obvious fix to tree.c (i.e., remove a blank
> line).  Should I add an entry to the ChangeLog and/or post the
> patch to gcc-patches?

ChangeLog? Dunno about such a corner case.

gcc-patches? Definitely, though it's fine after the fact for obvious
changes.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry"   pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: "obvious" requirements

[Matt Kraai]

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 11:20:00AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2003, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > I'd like to make a obvious fix to tree.c (i.e., remove a blank
> > line).  Should I add an entry to the ChangeLog and/or post the
> > patch to gcc-patches?
> 
> ChangeLog? Dunno about such a corner case.

So ChangeLog entries are sometimes required...

> gcc-patches? Definitely, though it's fine after the fact for obvious
> changes.

...and postings to gcc-patches are always required.

OK to commit the following?

-- 
Matt Kraai <kraai@alumni.cmu.edu>
Debian GNU/Linux Peon

*** cvswrite.html.~1.52.~	Wed Mar 26 13:18:35 2003
--- cvswrite.html	Mon May 19 08:05:30 2003
***************
*** 135,142 ****
  
  <p>Also note that fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs,
  web pages, comments and similar stuff need not be approved.  Just
! check in the fix.  We don't want to get overly anal about checkin
! policies.</p>
  
  <p>When you have checked in a patch exactly as it has been approved,
  you do not need to tell that to people -- including the approver.
--- 135,142 ----
  
  <p>Also note that fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs,
  web pages, comments and similar stuff need not be approved.  Just
! check in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>.  We don't
! want to get overly anal about checkin policies.</p>
  
  <p>When you have checked in a patch exactly as it has been approved,
  you do not need to tell that to people -- including the approver.

Re: "obvious" requirements

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Matt Kraai wrote:
> OK to commit the following?

Yes, thanks.

Gerald

PS: I apparently didn't get the copy of your message sent to me directly.
If you got any error message (which was not due to a problem on your side
which has been fixed), would you mind forwarding that to
  postmaster@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
(or try again, to see if it works now)? Thanks.
-- 
Gerald "Jerry"   pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: "obvious" requirements

[Kelley Cook]

Matt Kraii wrote:
>OK to commit the following?
...
>  
>  <p>Also note that fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs,
>  web pages, comments and similar stuff need not be approved.  Just
>! check in the fix.  We don't want to get overly anal about checkin
>! policies.</p>
>  
>  <p>When you have checked in a patch exactly as it has been approved,
>  you do not need to tell that to people -- including the approver.
>--- 135,142 ----
>  
>  <p>Also note that fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs,
>  web pages, comments and similar stuff need not be approved.  Just
>! check in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>.  We don't
>! want to get overly anal about checkin policies.</p>
>  
>  <p>When you have checked in a patch exactly as it has been approved,
>  you do not need to tell that to people -- including the approver.

Maybe, I'm just being anal, but as long as your touching this section
might it be prudent to change the vulgarity "anal" to the less tacky 
"picky"?

Kelley Cook

Re: "obvious" requirements

[Andrew Haley]

Kelley Cook writes:
 > Matt Kraii wrote:
 > >OK to commit the following?
 > ...
 > >  
 > >  <p>Also note that fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs,
 > >  web pages, comments and similar stuff need not be approved.  Just
 > >! check in the fix.  We don't want to get overly anal about checkin
 > >! policies.</p>
 > >  
 > >  <p>When you have checked in a patch exactly as it has been approved,
 > >  you do not need to tell that to people -- including the approver.
 > >--- 135,142 ----
 > >  
 > >  <p>Also note that fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs,
 > >  web pages, comments and similar stuff need not be approved.  Just
 > >! check in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>.  We don't
 > >! want to get overly anal about checkin policies.</p>
 > >  
 > >  <p>When you have checked in a patch exactly as it has been approved,
 > >  you do not need to tell that to people -- including the approver.
 > 
 > Maybe, I'm just being anal, but as long as your touching this section
 > might it be prudent to change the vulgarity "anal" to the less tacky 
 > "picky"?

"anal" is not a vulgarity, but a reference to Sigmund Freud's ideas on
anality, first published in 1908. Freud wrote that people with "anal
character" were meticulous, parsimonious, and obstinate.

It is wholly wrong to denigrate the use of this word when it is used
correctly, as it is here.

Andrew.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940211.html

Re: "obvious" requirements

[Fergus Henderson]

On 20-May-2003, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> "anal" is not a vulgarity, but a reference to Sigmund Freud's ideas on
> anality, first published in 1908. Freud wrote that people with "anal
> character" were meticulous, parsimonious, and obstinate.

Regardless of the academic history of this particular usage of the term,
it nevertheless has a strongly vulgar connotation, and IMHO should be
avoided in the GCC manual.  There are many people who would look for
any excuse to write GCC off as not a serious contender (maintained by
a bunch of part-time amateurs who can't even write a proper manual,
they would like to think) so it is important that the official GCC
documentation be written in a serious tone.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

Re: "obvious" requirements

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Wed, 21 May 2003, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 20-May-2003, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>> "anal" is not a vulgarity, but a reference to Sigmund Freud's ideas on
>> anality, first published in 1908. Freud wrote that people with "anal
>> character" were meticulous, parsimonious, and obstinate.

This may be related to me living less than 10km away from Berggasse 16 and
Andrew living near London (IIRC) ;-), but I don't see a problem either.

Even more so considering that it's not in the manual but one of the
web pages for those with GCC CVS write access, and has been there for
nearly five years:

  revision 1.3 of checkin.html
  date: 1998/07/05 22:37:42;  author: law;  state: Exp;  lines: +8 -2
  Note not to modify the guile subdir.  Also note certain changes that do
  not need approval for checkins.

I have, however, installed the following clarification below for now.

Gerald

Index: cvswrite.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/cvswrite.html,v
retrieving revision 1.52
diff -u -3 -p -r1.52 cvswrite.html
--- cvswrite.html	26 Mar 2003 21:18:35 -0000	1.52
+++ cvswrite.html	20 May 2003 17:48:14 -0000
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ in the MAINTAINERS file in the GCC distr

 <p>Also note that fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs,
 web pages, comments and similar stuff need not be approved.  Just
-check in the fix.  We don't want to get overly anal about checkin
+check in the fix.  We don't want to get overly anal-retentive about checkin
 policies.</p>

 <p>When you have checked in a patch exactly as it has been approved,

Re: "obvious" requirements

[Robert Dewar]

> Regardless of the academic history of this particular usage of the term,
> it nevertheless has a strongly vulgar connotation, and IMHO should be
> avoided in the GCC manual.  There are many people who would look for
> any excuse to write GCC off as not a serious contender (maintained by
> a bunch of part-time amateurs who can't even write a proper manual,
> they would like to think) so it is important that the official GCC
> documentation be written in a serious tone.

I strongly agree this this statement.