[patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline

[Andrew Cagney]

>>>>>> >>> ! @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
> context, IMHO.

As a "guideline" it's pretty strong - it met with clear support when 
proposed so I don't think anyone would not follow it.  And in the case 
of code, it really does need to be covered by an assignment (except when 
trivial) - that just explicitly stating the rule that applies to the 
mainline.

Anyway, I've removed the shall.

Look ok?

Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: diffs
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20041011/335b0a8c/attachment.ksh>