This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc

> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:16:46 -0800
> From: Doug Evans <>
> Cc: Yao Qi <>, gdb-patches <>
> >> > 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.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]