From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28786 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2004 21:42:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28567 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 21:42:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 21:42:26 -0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iAALgEI1014974; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:42:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id iAALgEet095585; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:42:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id iAALgEPM095582; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:42:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:42:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200411102142.iAALgEPM095582@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: eliz@gnu.org CC: cagney@gnu.org, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <01c4c766$Blat.v2.2.2$ce1fd200@zahav.net.il> (eliz@gnu.org) Subject: Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips References: <01c4bed6$Blat.v2.2.2$fa231b20@zahav.net.il> <41856ECA.2060701@gnu.org> <01c4bfcd$Blat.v2.2.2$299ef260@zahav.net.il> <20041101051257.GA11134@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c057$Blat.v2.2.2$4cacd760@zahav.net.il> <20041101223716.GB28889@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c096$Blat.v2.2.2$d4f57520@zahav.net.il> <20041109011458.GA32113@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c618$Blat.v2.2.2$0b838560@zahav.net.il> <4190E1F8.7000203@gnu.org> <20041109184221.GB13359@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c6dd$Blat.v2.2.2$a3bf1ea0@zahav.net.il> <01c4c766$Blat.v2.2.2$ce1fd200@zahav.net.il> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:48:40 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" > Before committing a patch as I did, I ask the question: > > ``Could a review significantly alter the change?'' > > Conversely, when reviewing a change, I ask: > > ``Is the objection going to significantly alter the change?'' > > Here, I cloned a pre-existing interface, adding another variant. Anyone > on this list with the problem I hit would have come up with an identical > change. > > Waiting a week would have achieved what? Let me turn the table, Andrew, and ask you what possible harm could be caused by posting the patch for review? At best, no one would have responded and you'd be committing the patch a week later. No harm done; case closed. At worst, someone _would_ have responded, and the patch would have been committed 7 days, instead of a week, later, after some short discussion. Again, no harm done. Sorry, but I have to disagree here. For the (unfortunately) limited number of people that contribute several patches in a week this is a significant problem. When I'm working on a particular area I often find myself making multiple changes to the same file. If I have to post a patch and wait a week before I can check it in, I have two options: 1. Juggle with the patches for a week, risking an accidental commit of stuff belonging to a different patch to the same file, or dropping a patch completely in the process. 2. Postpone further work on that part of GDB until the week is over and the patch has been committed. Neither option is good for GDB. Mark