| Message ID | CAD_=9DQ6mFSskFw6PrpLm8FfxH+nm83EaRNxbpCjM=0MV6H0Zg@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 28/11/13 14:28, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Richard Biener > <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why remove ChangeLog files, web pages and comments? Either >> enumerate everything or just enumerate nothing and simply say >> "Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval." > > Thanks, that's much better. I was trying to be more inclusive. > > > Index: htdocs/svnwrite.html > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/svnwrite.html,v > retrieving revision 1.29 > diff -u -d -u -p -r1.29 svnwrite.html > --- htdocs/svnwrite.html 24 Sep 2013 18:26:29 -0000 1.29 > +++ htdocs/svnwrite.html 28 Nov 2013 14:26:54 -0000 > @@ -147,10 +147,12 @@ list.</p> > > <p>The following changes can be made by everyone with SVN write access:</p> > > -<p>Fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments > -and similar stuff. Just check in the fix and copy it to > -<code>gcc-patches</code>. We don't want to get overly anal-retentive > -about checkin policies.</p> > +<p>Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval. Just check > +in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>. A good test to > +determine whether a fix is obvious: <q>will the person who objects to > +my work the most be able to find a fault with my fix?</q> If the fix > +is later found to be faulty, it can always be rolled back. We don't > +want to get overly restrictive about checkin policies.</p> > > <p>Similarly, no outside approval is needed to revert a patch that you > checked in.</p> > I think it might be worth saying that one class of 'obvious' fix that we don't want to go in without prior clearance are bulk white space clean-ups. These can be a right-royal pain to deal with if you're in the middle of a big re-write of a hunk of code. R.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> wrote: > I think it might be worth saying that one class of 'obvious' fix that we > don't want to go in without prior clearance are bulk white space > clean-ups. These can be a right-royal pain to deal with if you're in > the middle of a big re-write of a hunk of code. Hm, not sure I agree. Those are the most obvious to me. Particularly after I get my clang format pony. I've asked for GNU style support. It will be a lot easier to keep files properly formatted to the GNU guidelines. Making exceptions to the obvious rule seems illogical to me. Diego.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> wrote: > >> I think it might be worth saying that one class of 'obvious' fix that we >> don't want to go in without prior clearance are bulk white space >> clean-ups. These can be a right-royal pain to deal with if you're in >> the middle of a big re-write of a hunk of code. > > Hm, not sure I agree. Those are the most obvious to me. Particularly > after I get my clang format pony. I've asked for GNU style support. > It will be a lot easier to keep files properly formatted to the GNU > guidelines. > > Making exceptions to the obvious rule seems illogical to me. I have found that using git helps to mitigate the merging pain when the places I am working on have changed at the same time.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > Why remove ChangeLog files, web pages and comments? I was going to complain about web pages being removed. :-) On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote: > -<p>Fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments > -and similar stuff. Just check in the fix and copy it to > -<code>gcc-patches</code>. We don't want to get overly anal-retentive > -about checkin policies.</p> > +<p>Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval. Just check > +in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>. A good test to > +determine whether a fix is obvious: <q>will the person who objects to > +my work the most be able to find a fault with my fix?</q> If the fix > +is later found to be faulty, it can always be rolled back. We don't > +want to get overly restrictive about checkin policies.</p> I am in favor of this change. To some extent, this is more a clarification of what I have seen as our current policy than a change in policy, though to a laywer-minded person it surely looks like the latter. Not sure what kind of approval this needs? Mind it has. Gerald
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote: >> Why remove ChangeLog files, web pages and comments? > > I was going to complain about web pages being removed. :-) > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote: >> -<p>Fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments >> -and similar stuff. Just check in the fix and copy it to >> -<code>gcc-patches</code>. We don't want to get overly anal-retentive >> -about checkin policies.</p> >> +<p>Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval. Just check >> +in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>. A good test to >> +determine whether a fix is obvious: <q>will the person who objects to >> +my work the most be able to find a fault with my fix?</q> If the fix >> +is later found to be faulty, it can always be rolled back. We don't >> +want to get overly restrictive about checkin policies.</p> > > I am in favor of this change. > > To some extent, this is more a clarification of what I have seen as > our current policy than a change in policy, though to a laywer-minded > person it surely looks like the latter. Not sure what kind of approval > this needs? Mind it has. I have not received any feedback against this change. I will wait another 48 hours and commit. Diego.
On 12/04/13 07:20, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Why remove ChangeLog files, web pages and comments? >> >> I was going to complain about web pages being removed. :-) >> >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> -<p>Fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments >>> -and similar stuff. Just check in the fix and copy it to >>> -<code>gcc-patches</code>. We don't want to get overly anal-retentive >>> -about checkin policies.</p> >>> +<p>Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval. Just check >>> +in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>. A good test to >>> +determine whether a fix is obvious: <q>will the person who objects to >>> +my work the most be able to find a fault with my fix?</q> If the fix >>> +is later found to be faulty, it can always be rolled back. We don't >>> +want to get overly restrictive about checkin policies.</p> >> >> I am in favor of this change. >> >> To some extent, this is more a clarification of what I have seen as >> our current policy than a change in policy, though to a laywer-minded >> person it surely looks like the latter. Not sure what kind of approval >> this needs? Mind it has. > > I have not received any feedback against this change. I will wait > another 48 hours and commit. Here's feedback. Install it now :-) jeff
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> Here's feedback. Install it now :-)
Works for me :) Committed.
Diego.
Index: htdocs/svnwrite.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/svnwrite.html,v retrieving revision 1.29 diff -u -d -u -p -r1.29 svnwrite.html --- htdocs/svnwrite.html 24 Sep 2013 18:26:29 -0000 1.29 +++ htdocs/svnwrite.html 28 Nov 2013 14:26:54 -0000 @@ -147,10 +147,12 @@ list.</p> <p>The following changes can be made by everyone with SVN write access:</p> -<p>Fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments -and similar stuff. Just check in the fix and copy it to -<code>gcc-patches</code>. We don't want to get overly anal-retentive -about checkin policies.</p> +<p>Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval. Just check +in the fix and copy it to <code>gcc-patches</code>. A good test to +determine whether a fix is obvious: <q>will the person who objects to +my work the most be able to find a fault with my fix?</q> If the fix +is later found to be faulty, it can always be rolled back. We don't +want to get overly restrictive about checkin policies.</p> <p>Similarly, no outside approval is needed to revert a patch that you checked in.</p>