Re: contribution checklist in the wiki

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 05/20/2013 11:21 AM, Hui Zhu wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
> 
> Thanks for you works.
> 
> 
> I have a question about format of changelog:
> 2013-12-12  John Doe  <johndoe@some.email.address>
> 
>         PR gdb/9999
> 
>         * breakpoint.c (handle_some_event): Remove reference to<line
> wrap at or before column 79>
> 
> If I remember is right, some people told me that there should not have
> a empty line after "PR xxx".
> And I checked the changelog, some of them have empty line and others don't have.
> 
> So does it need a empty line after "PR xxx"?
>

Thanks for raising this.  Doug expressed a preference for not having
the empty line too off-list.  I've now removed it from the wiki.

I've been adding it, as to me it visually indicated the different
areas - the "why/PR" area vs the "what" area.  Skimming through the
entries, it seems I was practically alone though.  :-)  I'll
stop adding it from here on.

> 
> And I have another question is about [RFC].  Where should it be sent
> to, gdb or gdb-patches?

Good question.  I assume you mean an RFC without a patch.

I think that boils down to, what are really gdb's and
gdb-patches's scopes.

Comparing to GCC, they have:

#1 gcc-help    - a list for end users of gcc.
#2 gcc         - a list for discussions on the development of gcc itself
#3 gcc-patches - a list for patches

We have gdb and gdb-patches, but no gdb-help.  (And bug-gdb@gnu.org, but
I think most gdb developers don't even subscribe it...)

I think gdb@ fills both roles of #1 and a little of #2 (wrt to user
visible changes), while gdb-patches@ the roles of both #2 and #3.  We tend to
leave RFC discussions of gdb's internals on the gdb-patches list, while RFC
proposals that might affect user interface changes, RSP changes, python API
extensions, etc. are best done on the gdb@ list, which has more end users
and frontend developers in it, who we'll want to hear input from.  Exactly
because gdb@ has many end users on it who don't care about gdb's internals
as long as it works, I personally (and I suspect that's what others feel too)
don't send RFCs about GDB internals there, but instead I'll send them to
gdb-patches@, because that's the list that has all the people that care
about gdb development.  This very thread being an example.

IOW,

 gdb-patches - the list all gdb developers should be on.

 gdb - the end list users are on.  Given there's no separate
 developer list, a list developers should be on too.

So in a nutshell, use some judgment, and choose where to send the RFC
to depending on the target audience, and on whether you're requesting comments
on large visible user interface changes (-> gdb@) or on gdb's
internals (-> gdb-patches@).

That's my view anyhow.  Might be others see things a little different.
If we reach some sort of consensus, we could put it somewhere in the wiki.

Thanks,
-- 
Pedro Alves