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]

Re: The ``obvious fix'' rule.

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> To show my colours (note spelling :-) I've found that too often what is
> claimed to be an obvious fix is unfortunately wrong.  Rather than fixing
> a problem it just hide it, or worse, the patch will often take the the
> code base in directions it just shouldn't (the twilight zone of
> maintainability).  A favourite obvious fix involves bypassing interfaces
> and grubbing around in internals (ex registers[]).  The thing that will
> really get up my nose is someone making a change, and then announcing it
> after the fact with the claim it is an obvious fix :-)

In GCC-land, "obvious fix" means that there is no possibility that
anyone will disagree with the change.  Something like bypassing an
interface will result in instantaneous and loud complaints, and so
committers tend to be pretty careful about only putting in the
genuinely obvious without prior review.  Even so, sometimes things
have to be reverted if a committer gets overconfident.

Perhaps a good mental test is "will the person who hates my work
the most be able to find fault with the change" - if so, then it's
not obvious and needs to be posted first. :-)


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