This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Binutuls is broken now.
- To: hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com
- Subject: Re: Binutuls is broken now.
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:59:49 -0400
- CC: binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <200106191450.QAA18457@ignucius.axis.se>
> > I said "in general". And that rule *is* one of the gcc rules.
>
> I know it's a gcc rule, but this is binutils! If we default to
> gcc rules, then that needs to be stated somewhere.
I'm not saying it's a binutils rule now. I'm not saying we're
defaulting to gcc rules (If we were, that would be Nick's decision
anyway). I'm saying it's a good idea to revert things that don't work
as well as you expected, and rethink the change, rather than let the
code stay "broken" until it can be fixed. In gcc-land, it is
*required* that such patches be reverted immediately. Here, I'm just
saying it's a good idea to do so.
You checked in a patch that, while initially approved, caused
controversy and broke a very important and visible project, Linux.
What happens if you're called away from the project for a while? Will
the code remain broken, just because you never got around to fixing
it? By reverting the patch as soon as you know it's not as good as it
should be, you're (1) preventing such a case, and (2) encouraging a
better fix to be found.
I don't agree that HJ should have reverted your patch. Either you
should have chosen to do so, or HJ should have gotten permission. But
I do agree that reverting the patch *at this time* is the right thing
to do, even if we choose to re-apply it later (perhaps changed,
perhaps in conjunction with another patch, perhaps after discussing
and all agreeing that it really is the right thing to do).