[wwwdocs] Update obvious fix commit policy

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.

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.