From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26530 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2013 02:16:57 -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 26513 invoked by uid 89); 20 Nov 2013 02:16:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vb0-f50.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-vb0-f50.google.com) (209.85.212.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 02:16:55 +0000 Received: by mail-vb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 10so2413183vbe.23 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:16:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=69pPv7k5HiXmTj5kpNOc9ow1Uh5MkraRmx/cFcXga2s=; b=m7Ivv0FyP6qPRm6MUIY/V7oIHfjTLvjXDyctDCbcTLAZC42UoUUAQiqioPZLxd4b+5 WXW9bosFP9xL6PwpbNhCfCXVeMJzihjMN51jAzY6q+RXws6UFiwCAch1ERXW4AI5g/cv /LmgCRBWIAEmEojyjZsZE4+QJCrzXrLd1lejeUY9sva9iWoBURWCr4qiU5LRO/qtgMch wx8a1zETBq24fZkLa1IPuVoBiSEWaD4kUX1qGGnSBuXTM3BAdUyxnrfi81LJ+410Y/et /2R7vUoqovSE69IcNN9mYxP1sstQCwSCHHUqkDYHJKEb0LTgl1GShsT6WN15lnJZ8TjV o3Hw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn9QBBizx/SBrFfiXnnP6Pze+eIbbTfJm6qrLAsE+YbwO4fJQECi6D1iGlIRm4mfyp5Xg9m4y10Pjy8WHDO2Fq7kWmhP9kJOnZUEZCmy+SPPZKen2FnUsLi9Hs2VrOeSbbmAQ8kaGleg48EX5BbVCk0wWuX/h1RBrtH7ChfAyx3qmWXp98tVYa9AmnCviQWgJmsQ9DvW16wXT/NgjuSgp9Ef345TA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.123.6 with SMTP id n6mr36886vcr.28.1384913806834; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.163.52 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:16:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <838uwmhgha.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> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 02:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc From: Doug Evans To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00571.txt.bz2 On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:15:10 -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. So we would have one rule for code and the opposite rule for docs. 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 think it should be ok if someone did that ... we have a lot of rules to what is an acceptable patch already. >> For code we ask people to split such things out. >> I can well imagine people applying the same logic to documentation. >> I don't know that it necessarily applies here, but it could. > > Sorry, I don't understand: what logic? > > What I'm asking is not request me to review a 15-line change to > documentation in 5 3-line pieces. See my point above. Can I suggest that we allow any GM to approve doc changes. We need all the review bandwidth we can get. And *even* if they make mistakes sometimes, *that's ok*'. Even better. Mistakes are great teachers (if handled appropriately). :-)