The ``obvious fix'' rule.

[Andrew Cagney]

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. :-)

Assuming no one objects, I'll add this to the MAINTAINERS file.

	Andrew