On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> This patch is obvious and it fixes breakage. Please go ahead and commit it. > > Sorry to pick on you here Steven, but this doesn't meet gcc's > definition of an obvious patch. Don't believe me? See > http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html#policies
Hmm.... I guess the patch will have to be reverted, then :-) Or maybe this would be under the banner of "We don't want to get overly anal-retentive about checkin policies." In any case, it's not unprecedented that obviously obvious patches get checked in even if they're not obvious according to that policy. To list a few from just this month: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02989.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02975.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02970.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02972.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02496.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02331.html So perhaps the policy should include a line about fixing trivial breakage from recent check-ins. Ciao! Steven
