[patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
Fri Oct 8 09:47:00 GMT 2004
> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:19:41 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <email@example.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Given the discussions about finding out MI versions, do we perhaps
> > want to tell vendors not to embed whitespace in their identifiers?
> I don't see it as a problem.
In my experience, whitespace make the automated parsing harder. But
if no one else sees this as a problem, I won't object.
> >>> ! @item all commits shall be covered by an assignment
> > Don't you need "should be covered"?
> Shall. It's a strict requirement.
Well, the text says ``guidelines'', not ``requirements''. Also, do we
really expect the reader of those to be fluent with the conventions of
MIL-STD-489 and its ilk? If not, ``shall'' sounds bad English in this
Otherwise, fine with me, thanks.
More information about the Gdb-patches