This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: The ``obvious fix'' rule.
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Subject: Re: The ``obvious fix'' rule.
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:36:37 -0800
- Cc: GDB Discussion <gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- References: <3A64EDE9.74ADADAF@cygnus.com> <3A64F63A.9714D091@apple.com>
Well, no one objected so ...
Stan Shebs wrote:
> 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. :-)