From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 80789 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2016 13:48:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 80607 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2016 13:48:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Feel, HCC:D*gmail.com X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:48:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Rical Jasan CC: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] manual: Refactor header and standards annotations. In-Reply-To: <7b601dd6-09b5-c9e9-01b2-7b54e8c4eb55@pacific.net> Message-ID: References: <20161206105525.21117-1-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <20161206105525.21117-2-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <7b601dd6-09b5-c9e9-01b2-7b54e8c4eb55@pacific.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00701.txt.bz2 On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Rical Jasan wrote: > And now would probably be a better time to update the syntax comment in > summary.awk, which may not show up for a while otherwise (in [v2 4/5]; > presently unreviewed). I was also thinking of adjusting it a bit: > > # This script recognizes sequences that look like: > -# @comment HEADER.h > +# @comment HEADER.h[ ...] > # @comment STANDARD > # @def... ITEM | @item ITEM | @vindex ITEM > +# where multiple headers must be space-separated and STANDARD is > +# essentially free-form. > > Should I submit a v3 for this, stick to v2, or go ahead and commit with > the suggested updates? Where a patch or part of a patch has been approved and that change is still the form you want to get in, you should commit it. If something has not been approved, or it's been approved but you want to make further changes beyond what counts as obvious (e.g. routine fixes for merge conflicts, or fixing a typo in your changes, are generally obvious), a new patch revision should be submitted. Feel free to split the summary.awk updates out into a separate patch in the next revision if that seems useful for review. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com