This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: yao at codesourcery dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 05:58:02 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1383458049-20893-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1383458049-20893-5-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <83k3gpa0hf dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22ToZGdnbnPjOEbq6uvcBHjmjCAiU9FYskKMGLSpiPgJCA at mail dot gmail dot com> <838uwmhgha dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22TVRike0KudjGruk3DAXcZEk3dXeDx3Jnj7V58fj9LSkw at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:16:46 -0800
> From: Doug Evans <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: Yao Qi <email@example.com>, gdb-patches <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> > Thanks. But may I ask in the future not to split the patches to
> >> > documentation that are related to the same series? When you split
> >> > them, it makes the review harder, as I see the documentation changes
> >> > piecemeal, rather than together.
> >> That may be hard to apply in general.
> > I don't see why it would be. Can you elaborate?
> We actively ask people to do the opposite for code.
I don't understand why, but I won't argue about that part.
> So we would have one rule for code and the opposite rule for docs.
Yes, but I see no problem here: the translation of code rules to docs
is problematic anyway.
> Sometimes a patch series will have several doc additions, that while
> collectively may appear as one doc patch, the submitter chose to break
> them up to keep them with their respective code parts.
I'm asking that all documentation changes for a series appear as one
> I think it should be ok if someone did that ... we have a lot of rules
> to what is an acceptable patch already.
I didn't suggest to add a new rule, I was just asking several
individuals to humor me. They can elect to ignore my request, if they
don't want to.
> Can I suggest that we allow any GM to approve doc changes.
> We need all the review bandwidth we can get.
If you think I'm slow in reviewing, let's talk about that.