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: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:38:40 -0800
- 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> <83bo1fg1x1 dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Eli Zaretskii <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 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.
I think it would depend on the patch.
In general I'd just apply something intuitive based on how I'm
submitting the code changes.
>> 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 can add something to the patch submission guidelines that says that.
>> 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.
Rather, I didn't want to suggest an increased workload without also
suggesting a way to share it.