On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> How about now?
Thanks for the update, Dan!
I saw that I had forgot to preapprove this in my previous message, so I
went ahead an installed the patch right away (after updating the date and
removing the "Thanks" part which we haven't doing historically
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 00:16 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Here's a patch.
>
> Thanks.
>
> There are a couple of commas between items missing (usually when
> there is a line break)
fixed.
> and some of the lines are too long (as with
> GCC sources we
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 15:21 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:07:01AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> > > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
|
| > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
| > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
| > internals manual in without review. Is that somethin
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tuesday 12 July 2005 00:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
| > | after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:07:01AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
> > internals manual in without review. Is
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 00:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> | after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
> | internals manual in without review. Is that som
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
> internals manual in without review. Is that something people are
> willing to consider and discuss?
I think t
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Monday 11 July 2005 23:34, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
| > >> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to
| > >> assist in review?
| > >
| > > I strongly support this (and was going
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
> internals manual in without review. Is that something people are
> willing to consider and discuss?
Rather t
On Monday 11 July 2005 23:34, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> >> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to
> >> assist in review?
> >
> > I strongly support this (and was going to suggest this myself). I'd
> > rather it be another li
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to
>> assist in review?
> I strongly support this (and was going to suggest this myself). I'd rather
> it be another list though, say wiki-patches or doc-patches, because of the
> amoun
Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nobody is going to be blocked by this; no bootstrap will be broken; no
>> wrong code will be generated. This ain't code. In many common cases, the
>
> Wrong code will be generated when someone relies on subtly wrong
> information in the documentation.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> My personal position is that making documentation patches *blocked* by
> review (as happens with code) is wrong. The worst thing it can happen is
> that the documentation patch is wrong, and the doc maintainer can revert it
> in literally seconds (using
Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html
Yes. And the review was very detailed, and suggested that I had to redone to
wo
> In fact, i had someone recently send me a *104 page PDF file* on how
> RTL really works organized in a way that most developers would
> probably find better.
So share it with the masses, put it in the wiki.
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > 3. We should seriously consider writing and maintaining different guides
| > and references than the ones we have.
|
| Nobody won't object to that, I guess.
Indeed.
-- Gaby
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > However, I just don't have the bandwidth to dig through Wiki and port
| > things over, and it's not exactly an efficient nor motivating modus
| > operandi either.
| I would submit them from the wiki if i felt people found more use for it
| in
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
|
| Gaby> That is a question I would have loved answered did I endorse its
| Gaby> predicate.
|
| Then by all means continue to use the existing docs in your world
| and let others create more useful documentation
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 22:50 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created
> > a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they
> > should find useful*.
>
> I'm sure you are aware of the
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> HowToPrepareATestcase was submitted but never reviewed which is why it
> moved to the wiki.
It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg0032
On Jul 10, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a
parallel
universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
The Wiki is a nice idea for p
On Sunday 10 July 2005 20:43, Richard Kenner wrote:
> This happens because
> 1. People don't want to write texinfo,
>
> People don't like to write comments either, but I don't think most people
> would suggest we stop requiring comments.
>
> The documentation style of the GNU project is te
On Sunday 10 July 2005 20:14, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The issue is not complaining that people do useful things. Rather,
> whether the updated and and more useful documentation of GCC shall be
> moved outside GCC main docuementation sources.
This is just a matter of where a contributor wants to
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
> current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
> because they are out of date, but because they don't give them
> information on what they really want to know.
I
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created
> a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they
> should find useful*.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that I am not responsible for
gcc/doc/*.texi as such. The main
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
Gaby> That is a question I would have loved answered did I endorse its
Gaby> predicate.
Then by all means continue to use the existing docs in your world
and let others create more useful documentation for developers in our
world, which appears to be on a d
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| These are all related causes of the effect that our documentation and
| the process behind it hasn't worked for as long as i've been hacking gcc
| (5 or 6 years now). Everyone seems to pretend "oh, it's just the damn
| lazy developers fault, they
> It appears to me that you're relating unrelated effects and causes.
Not really.
People don't contribute to the current docs for the following main
reasons, AFAICT and have heard from people, *in order of number of
complaints i've heard from people*:
1. They don't want to send continual incompl
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 20:14 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| > | > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
|
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Sorry for the tone, i've had a frustrating day for other reasons :)
|
| However, my real point still stands:
|
| 1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
| current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> This happens because
> 1. People don't want to write texinfo, and continually submit patches to
> update the docs little by little (remember, people work on docs the same
> way they do on code. Most of the time, what they have written is not
> complete
This happens because
1. People don't want to write texinfo,
People don't like to write comments either, but I don't think most people
would suggest we stop requiring comments.
The documentation style of the GNU project is texinfo and that choice
was made for sound reasons, which continue
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 20:14 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> | > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
> | > to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
| > to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
| > universe at that, with quite some duplic
Sorry for the tone, i've had a frustrating day for other reasons :)
However, my real point still stands:
1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
because they are out of date, but because they don't g
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
> to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
> universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
Have you not yet discov
I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
The Wiki is a nice idea for project lists, "Hot Bugzillas" lists and
similar, but
On Sunday 10 July 2005 00:16, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Here's a patch.
>
> Thanks.
>
> There are a couple of commas between items missing (usually when
> there is a line break) and some of the lines are too long (as with
> GCC sources we generally prefer
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Here's a patch.
Thanks.
There are a couple of commas between items missing (usually when
there is a line break) and some of the lines are too long (as with
GCC sources we generally prefer lines no longer than ~77 characters).
Is the new stack checking i
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 23:39 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I was thinking we maybe should just copy the checked in project list
> > from the wiki, remove the duplicates (IE struct aliasing part I and II,
> > etc), and add a news item saying:
> >
> > "GC
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
I was thinking we maybe should just copy the checked in project list
from the wiki, remove the duplicates (IE struct aliasing part I and II,
etc), and add a news item saying:
"GCC 4.1 stage 2 is now closed. The following projects
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I was thinking we maybe should just copy the checked in project list
> from the wiki, remove the duplicates (IE struct aliasing part I and II,
> etc), and add a news item saying:
>
> "GCC 4.1 stage 2 is now closed. The following projects were
> contribut
I was thinking we maybe should just copy the checked in project list
from the wiki, remove the duplicates (IE struct aliasing part I and II,
etc), and add a news item saying:
"GCC 4.1 stage 2 is now closed. The following projects were
contributed: . Thank you to all contributors, testers,
and ev
44 matches
Mail list logo
