[rfa/doc] Branch commit policy

[rfa/doc] Branch commit policy

[Andrew Cagney]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 72 bytes --]

Hello,

Attached is the revised branch commit policy.  Look ok?

Andrew

[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1797 bytes --]

2002-03-15  Andrew Cagney  <ac131313@redhat.com>

	* gdbint.texinfo (Releasing GDB): Add the section``Branch Commit
	Policy''.

Index: gdbint.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.67
diff -u -r1.67 gdbint.texinfo
--- gdbint.texinfo	2002/03/04 20:38:10	1.67
+++ gdbint.texinfo	2002/03/15 07:28:48
@@ -4822,6 +4822,37 @@
 @chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
 @cindex making a new release of gdb
 
+@section Branch Commit Policy
+
+The branch commit policy is pretty slack.  @value{GDBN} releases
+@var{5.0}, @var{5.1} and @var{5.2} all used the below:
+
+@itemize @bullet
+@item
+The @file{gdb/MAINTAINERS} file still holds.
+@item
+Don't fix something on the branch unless/until it is also fixed in the
+trunk.  If this isn't possible, mentioning it in the @file{gdb/PROBLEMS}
+file is better than committing a hack
+@item
+When considering a patch for the branch, suggested criteria include:
+Does it fix a build?  Does it fix the sequence @kbd{break main; run}
+when debugging a static binary?
+@item
+The further a change is from the core of @value{GDBN}, the less likely
+the change will worry anyone (e.g.@: target specific code).
+@item
+Only post a proposal to change the core of @value{GDBN} after you've
+sent individual bribes to all the people listed in the
+@file{MAINTAINERS} file @kbd{;-)}
+@end itemize
+
+@emph{Pragmatics: Provided updates are restricted to non-core
+functionality there is little chance that a broken change will be fatal.
+This means that changes such as adding a new architectures or (within
+reason) support for a new host are considered acceptable.}
+
+
 @section Obsolete any code
 
 Before anything else, poke the other developers (and around the source

Re: [rfa/doc] Branch commit policy

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:30:06 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
> 
> Attached is the revised branch commit policy.  Look ok?

Yes, thanks.

> +The branch commit policy is pretty slack.  @value{GDBN} releases
> +@var{5.0}, @var{5.1} and @var{5.2} all used the below:

See my comments in the other mail about @var.

> +The further a change is from the core of @value{GDBN}, the less likely
> +the change will worry anyone (e.g.@: target specific code).

See my comments about "e.g." in the other mail.

> +@file{MAINTAINERS} file @kbd{;-)}

I suggest to use @t{;-)} instead: @kbd is typeset by TeX in slanted
font, so the smiley will come out crooked ;-)  @t produces an upright
typewriter font, which I believe is what you want.

Re: [rfa/doc] Branch commit policy

[Andrew Cagney]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 35 bytes --]

Try the attatched,

Thanks.
Andrew

[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1776 bytes --]

2002-03-15  Andrew Cagney  <ac131313@redhat.com>

	* gdbint.texinfo (Releasing GDB): Add the section``Branch Commit
	Policy''.

Index: gdbint.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.67
diff -u -r1.67 gdbint.texinfo
--- gdbint.texinfo	2002/03/04 20:38:10	1.67
+++ gdbint.texinfo	2002/03/17 15:12:19
@@ -4822,6 +4822,37 @@
 @chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
 @cindex making a new release of gdb
 
+@section Branch Commit Policy
+
+The branch commit policy is pretty slack.  @value{GDBN} releases 5.0,
+5.1 and 5.2 all used the below:
+
+@itemize @bullet
+@item
+The @file{gdb/MAINTAINERS} file still holds.
+@item
+Don't fix something on the branch unless/until it is also fixed in the
+trunk.  If this isn't possible, mentioning it in the @file{gdb/PROBLEMS}
+file is better than committing a hack
+@item
+When considering a patch for the branch, suggested criteria include:
+Does it fix a build?  Does it fix the sequence @kbd{break main; run}
+when debugging a static binary?
+@item
+The further a change is from the core of @value{GDBN}, the less likely
+the change will worry anyone (e.g., target specific code).
+@item
+Only post a proposal to change the core of @value{GDBN} after you've
+sent individual bribes to all the people listed in the
+@file{MAINTAINERS} file @t{;-)}
+@end itemize
+
+@emph{Pragmatics: Provided updates are restricted to non-core
+functionality there is little chance that a broken change will be fatal.
+This means that changes such as adding a new architectures or (within
+reason) support for a new host are considered acceptable.}
+
+
 @section Obsolete any code
 
 Before anything else, poke the other developers (and around the source

Re: [rfa/doc] Branch commit policy

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Try the attatched,

I'm happy now ;-)

Thanks.