This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Reformat sysdeps/x86/libc-start.c
- From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder at gmail dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:51:50 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reformat sysdeps/x86/libc-start.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20171030200246.GA14084@intel.com> <4bcfa16d-bce2-55ed-77f2-69502b2ecfff@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOrrDCqMgT+AaLCtWgTADBc6d5ZvkCo9+5HWgGCP-qT6MQ@mail.gmail.com> <6c3b36c8-fb8d-69e4-2dd3-6ba41c1eef9f@redhat.com> <20171030221214.uup2uy7p3a7neyqv@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <be7df78b-4fc8-9ce0-b5dd-7e548fa1b37e@redhat.com>
Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 10/30/2017 11:12 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> Should we extend consensus?
>>>
>>> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus#Trivial_Bug-Fix_Changes
>>> ~~~
>>> Anyone can commit a change fixing obvious coding standards problems
>>> in a recently committed patch. Post the patch and ChangeLog to
>>> libc-alpha with a short message and then push the commit.
>>> ~~~
>>> s/a recently/any/g
[...]
>> I would rather not --- getting LGTM is a pretty lightweight action,
>
> I must say that I agree with Carlos here. Even what should be a trivial
> review is often difficult to get, and a lot of cleanups land only because
> the author eventually commits their changes without review.
Sounds like a plan.
I don't want to lose sight of this being a symptom of the review
process being broken, though. My offer to help in whatever way looks
most useful still stands: e.g. feel free to explicitly cc me if you
have an obvious change that doesn't fall into this 'coding standards'
category that needs review.
Thanks,
Jonathan