From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25549 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2011 16:20:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 25521 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2011 16:20:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (HELO smtp.gentoo.org) (140.211.166.183) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:20:03 +0000 Received: from vapier.localnet (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24D31B4001; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:20:02 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger To: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/348] Fix -Wsahdow warnings Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:20:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.1; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Andrey Smirnov , Marek Polacek References: <878vn88fw3.fsf@gmail.com> <201111221027.52484.vapier@gentoo.org> <20111122160539.GA22283@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20111122160539.GA22283@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2220416.aJ7dzuTy9J"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201111221120.06244.vapier@gentoo.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00587.txt.bz2 --nextPart2220416.aJ7dzuTy9J Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1144 On Tuesday 22 November 2011 11:05:39 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > please condense down your patches if you resend. there's way too many > > little tiny ones that really should be squashed into a single > > changeset. >=20 > In my view, if the patches can be checked in independently, then > it is a good thing that they are split. Imagine the situation where > one of these changes is bad, we'd then be able to revert that one > patch, rather than fixing by hand. i'm not saying it should be exactly 1 patch. but 348 is way too big. doin= g=20 it on an API or file level is a good compromise. > > your ChangeLogs are also incorrect. it should not be: > > * bcache.c (expand_hash_table): Fix -Wshadow warnings. > >=20 > > but rather: > > * bcache.c (expand_hash_table): Rename bcache to cache. >=20 > I'm 50/50 on this. I don't mind either way. What do others think? > Is that really that important that we must create boring extra work > for Andrey? it's my understanding that the GNU changelog style is "document what change= d"=20 and not "why". i think that's largely stupid, but i'm not the one in contr= ol=20 of said policy. -mike --nextPart2220416.aJ7dzuTy9J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-length: 836 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJOy8u2AAoJEEFjO5/oN/WB2qIP/2DVVkh9MQNV0Mq2DevXxbNw E06p0pKOasoqOYZRkfDYzNc9UIlQBXEhKXrIcykdoB+vG8kuJJWoacc2z12noLVf mDGy5jwfoDAYJ3eySKzGgcDQO/G61wMGNEY3qeuYv1LdF5LzIzNAm48T3CBfy+Q/ jP9J5ubmdbjPpCDZSJCOPPoLtOEkN3pJSGnfNmmAvofAfo8tuBCiP9Krq9XBKDnp 7Hb/hOtZyBnVghv2EbSqYLI0uofkISSFv1i1YD3cGyglyGKmnpbSFiujvxYEVsBs wICxrKznyxqQp0D7ocz4qU+pcQKa14rG9pCSl5YMRa7W2e9CNND8ZWemq+sydEAk KOjte0EctpLq+WbvTyBv0a+MRrzkIzeYz1XmONQu9g91KJ0ecbrOxCWUyzhDZeh2 LY1a6aom2S0yx9R0m9Ov+NjHNWIRZFap356Qrybas88RE0pt5fM/wDlh/+KqGACU fetX5LjtgG6bixOlv/9vlrYgBV3LhD694rvdpd8Q3cawX1WHKas7TRSvk+ExAa2T iDggYZW/auQZhTJWtKiNOzCVbhDFlwo1MtGc9S6jIImSeCk1ptfsvbU6d/HXBTcc JungO6TYvFi03AfTcLlI0Fvj2PiOHwB+jMCtExypHTW+2q5FfLOChyjn7RBPpOIZ cgnzxulrkib927KiiFJ6 =br7Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2220416.aJ7dzuTy9J--