On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:59:27AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > [*] The change in the patch is obvious enough to me. All it > does is accept more of the things that are accepted by GCC 8 > (enums, bools, wchar_t, etc.) and that inadvertently started > to be rejected as a result of my prior change. That the rules > can be made more restrictive is something different. Obvious changes should be obvious to anyone, not just the committer, IMHO. I don't think we should make the rules more restrictive; what we have in place seems to have worked fine and I would have thought it's clear that changing what the compiler accepts will never be an obvious change, unlike, say, fixing a test that fails with -m32 because it uses 'unsigned long' instead of size_t.
> I recently brought up the question of the write w/o approval > policy on the gcc list: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-11/msg00165.html > > looking for clarification. Except for Jeff's comment (which > I'm afraid didn't really clarify things), didn't get any. > > You (the maintainers) have put it in place. If you don't intend > for the rest of us to make use of it, or if it's not meant to be > interpreted to give us the freedom to decide what is or isn't > obvious, then change it. But it's disingenuous to claim that "We > don't want to get overly restrictive about checkin policies" and > then chastise people each time they say they might check something > in on their own. ...or fixing typos in comments and formatting fixes should be obvious, adding new tests for fixed bugs likely as well, but outlining semantics in a comment doesn't strike me as obvious at all. "When in doubt, ask for a review." Marek
