This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on high-level objective of cleanup, refactor or rework patches.
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:23:34 +0000
- Subject: Re: Consensus on high-level objective of cleanup, refactor or rework patches.
- Ironport-sdr: XK+8zFoybhuez1k10UZpfiTGTi9juKi5BulxpYune/sdgwh7TFw1QDcxbuheLwewt7VxBHzm5Q ZfO49Gkd0nO9EiNvkuEzXtGjQolanH2XzdvrarnCyGFajzV8knbGa8YlnZaVvliljAOKhwcvqO qi+mmVIbl3MUZNv9p814Xfby9GMNBXWUquLCn8WH2qk3Ha42c/ePyOaTlYJgYm/4mUJAchT5vT C8YdGalmpQxYi1W8zEgmQOCGcMpSunJIXOdWqD6hYny1F1pHHXlYB2LzLVwVBynpgpD0GQBp2h rlE=
- Ironport-sdr: 3k7pMewkwD/Zg/LsrxBKnRzd7Bclya4Yy+Q4Ptt3s06TK60TzOUvFusgq4f0CWZXIeKgkBwvUw 35h0xMla+K1qgU6+M7HbJOawuz7e0bwxoWzNw2a/QCHbLrCukTD7+Ymikufbr4r9Q/wVKJnh5S huKszb9uDs940dw9WVkALhpVrDyldnJc0QNKL2pvziDGvnOyQg8S1urf/T2R3iQbr8h1FQqxuR 2DZoc4IvDQoHKJK/tItGHavi8x2uezC6gnwoOUdywLPQe/QP+D2sB8y0jG80CFsRhAsld8SHBS ey0=
- References: <CAEMqeSqcGvsmuR9XwqG4v7UkTeBGpcsAD-RHjg9FBPiUZZW93A@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> To that end I propose we approve via consensus the concept of a set of
> changes and allow the maintainer to commit across the entire code base
> to implement the concept without having to go through a second round
> of review. The initial review of the concept is approval enough.
I think it's very rare that this would be appropriate. Consensus on a
high-level concept is very different from consensus on the particular
details of changes - furthermore, various aspects of the details of the
changes will only emerge as they are implemented, and it's quite possible
that something seems attractive at the high-level design level but the
details of the changes result in the whole idea seeming less attractive to
the community or the design needing to be revisited.
Only in some of the most purely mechanical cases (e.g. removal of
conditional code after we next increase the minimum supported Linux kernel
version) might the concept make the underlying changes clear enough. In
most cases, such a change runs into several special cases that need
individual attention and review, even if the bulk of the patches are
mechanical.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com