> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Botcazou [mailto:ebotca...@adacore.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:33 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Diego Novillo; Jeff Law; Steven Bosscher > Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy > > > Can I make a suggestion that if someone is making an "obvious" change > > (with the exception of changing non-working code (comments, things > > inside #if 0, etc)), have a patch on the mailing list for 12-24 hrs. > > before putting it in? Maybe they could say something like, I will > > check this in by X time <TIMEZONE> tomorrow since this looks obvious > > to me. This way if the change hurts someone who is working on a > > feature in their local machine that is using the existing framework can > chime in. > > I disagree, obvious patches cannot reasonably invalidate the work of others, > or else they are simply not obvious. At worst they can privatize a public > function or remove an unused one, but then it's easy to undo that later. >
Those at worst examples you have mentioned is the ones that scare me. Sometimes when a function becomes private, making it public back again is sometimes an uphill battle. I am not saying they shouldn't commit it, but at least give a heads-up. This being said, I am Ok with either decision. > -- > Eric Botcazou
