From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25920 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2013 03:58:14 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 25910 invoked by uid 89); 20 Nov 2013 03:58:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout22.012.net.il Received: from Unknown (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 03:58:12 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWJ00H00MU81500@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 05:58:03 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWJ00HRYN0R0720@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 05:58:03 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 04:01:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc In-reply-to: To: Doug Evans Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83bo1fg1x1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1383458049-20893-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1383458049-20893-5-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <83k3gpa0hf.fsf@gnu.org> <838uwmhgha.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00582.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:16:46 -0800 > From: Doug Evans > Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches > > >> > 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.