From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 04:01:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83bo1fg1x1.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADPb22TVRike0KudjGruk3DAXcZEk3dXeDx3Jnj7V58fj9LSkw@mail.gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:16:46 -0800
> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
> Cc: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>
> >> > Thanks. But may I ask in the future not to split the patches to
> >> > documentation that are related to the same series? When you split
> >> > them, it makes the review harder, as I see the documentation changes
> >> > piecemeal, rather than together.
> >>
> >> That may be hard to apply in general.
> >
> > I don't see why it would be. Can you elaborate?
>
> We actively ask people to do the opposite for code.
I don't understand why, but I won't argue about that part.
> So we would have one rule for code and the opposite rule for docs.
Yes, but I see no problem here: the translation of code rules to docs
is problematic anyway.
> Sometimes a patch series will have several doc additions, that while
> collectively may appear as one doc patch, the submitter chose to break
> them up to keep them with their respective code parts.
I'm asking that all documentation changes for a series appear as one
patch.
> I think it should be ok if someone did that ... we have a lot of rules
> to what is an acceptable patch already.
I didn't suggest to add a new rule, I was just asking several
individuals to humor me. They can elect to ignore my request, if they
don't want to.
> Can I suggest that we allow any GM to approve doc changes.
> We need all the review bandwidth we can get.
If you think I'm slow in reviewing, let's talk about that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-20 3:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-03 5:57 [PATCH 00/10 V2] Cache code access for disassemble Yao Qi
2013-11-03 5:56 ` [PATCH 08/10] Don't invalidate dcache when option stack-cache is changed Yao Qi
2013-11-17 22:02 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-18 14:12 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-18 15:51 ` Pedro Alves
2013-11-19 6:43 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-19 12:14 ` Pedro Alves
2013-11-19 14:06 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-03 5:56 ` [PATCH 09/10] set/show code-cache Yao Qi
2013-11-03 16:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-11-18 8:23 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-03 5:56 ` [PATCH 03/10] Move target-dcache out of target.c Yao Qi
2013-11-17 20:15 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-18 15:53 ` Pedro Alves
2013-11-03 5:56 ` [PATCH 01/10] Remove last_cache Yao Qi
2013-11-17 19:52 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-03 5:56 ` [PATCH 07/10] Associate target_dcache to address_space Yao Qi
2013-11-03 16:48 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-11-17 21:22 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-20 7:54 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-20 13:23 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-03 5:56 ` [PATCH 02/10] Don't update target_dcache if it is not initialized Yao Qi
2013-11-17 20:09 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-03 5:56 ` [PATCH 05/10] Invalidate or shrink dcache when setting is changed Yao Qi
2013-11-03 16:50 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-11-17 20:55 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-18 14:31 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-18 15:59 ` Pedro Alves
2013-11-19 6:16 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-19 11:52 ` Pedro Alves
2013-11-19 13:12 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-03 5:57 ` [PATCH 06/10] Add REGISTRY for struct address_space Yao Qi
2013-11-17 21:09 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-20 4:46 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-03 5:57 ` [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc Yao Qi
2013-11-03 16:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-11-06 7:56 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-06 10:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-11-17 20:34 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-17 21:44 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-11-20 2:41 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-20 4:01 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2013-11-22 1:17 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-20 3:58 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-11 9:38 ` [PATCH 00/10 V2] Cache code access for disassemble Yao Qi
2013-11-17 17:03 ` Yao Qi
2013-11-18 8:39 ` [PATCH 10/10] Use target_read_code in disassemble Yao Qi
2013-11-18 17:12 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-20 4:46 ` [PATCH 00/10 V2] Cache code access for disassemble Yao Qi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83bo1fg1x1.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=dje@google.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=yao@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox