On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 04:30:50PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> Sorry to pick on you here Steven, but this doesn't meet gcc's > >> definition of an obvious patch. Don't believe me? > > > No. I don't, let me quote from the policy: > > I find this whole thread a rather sad and pathetic bikeshed > discussion. Regardless of the formal policy, the basic concept is to > use common sense. Common sense about the context of the code being > changed, common sense about the patch itself, and common sense about > the maintenance area and the maintainers. > > Anything more than that is people trying to create / change rules as a > stick to hit each other over the head or a straight jacket to tie each > other up.
I find this a bit rich coming from you, David. On the weekend I committed a patch as obvious, for which you "hit me over the head", stating in no uncertain terms that I should not bypass you and commit patches like that as "obvious". I still think the substance of the patch was obvious for anyone who has worked on the powerpc backend for as long as I have, but after some discussion I backed down because technically, you were within your rights and I had transgressed the rules. You have the stick *now*. And wield it. I'm trying to take it away from you.. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
