[RFC] Is this kind of patch welcomed?

[RFC] Is this kind of patch welcomed?

[Wu Zhou]

This is to fix a typo in remote.c, found while I am reading the 
source code.  Is this kind of patch welcomed?  If it is, should 
I add a changelog entry as well?  If not, please ignore it. 

Thanks.

Index: gdb/remote.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/remote.c,v
retrieving revision 1.190
diff -c -p -r1.190 remote.c
*** gdb/remote.c	16 May 2005 16:36:24 -0000	1.190
--- gdb/remote.c	24 May 2005 04:08:31 -0000
*************** struct gdb_ext_thread_info
*** 1114,1120 ****
      int active;			/* Has state interesting to GDB? 
  				   regs, stack.  */
      char display[256];		/* Brief state display, name, 
! 				   blocked/syspended.  */
      char shortname[32];		/* To be used to name threads.  */
      char more_display[256];	/* Long info, statistics, queue depth, 
  				   whatever.  */
--- 1114,1120 ----
      int active;			/* Has state interesting to GDB? 
  				   regs, stack.  */
      char display[256];		/* Brief state display, name, 
! 				   blocked/suspended.  */
      char shortname[32];		/* To be used to name threads.  */
      char more_display[256];	/* Long info, statistics, queue depth, 
  				   whatever.  */

Re: [RFC] Is this kind of patch welcomed?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:13:32AM -0700, Wu Zhou wrote:
> This is to fix a typo in remote.c, found while I am reading the 
> source code.  Is this kind of patch welcomed?  If it is, should 
> I add a changelog entry as well?  If not, please ignore it. 
> 
> Thanks.

The patch is fine - but yes, it does need a changelog entry.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [RFC] Is this kind of patch welcomed?

[Wu Zhou]

OK.  Followed is the revised patch: another typo is fixed and changlog
entry added. 

2005-05-25  Wu Zhou  <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>

	* remote.c: Fix two comment typos

Index: remote.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/remote.c,v
retrieving revision 1.190
diff -c -p -r1.190 remote.c
*** remote.c	16 May 2005 16:36:24 -0000	1.190
--- remote.c	25 May 2005 02:11:20 -0000
*************** struct gdb_ext_thread_info
*** 1114,1120 ****
      int active;			/* Has state interesting to GDB? 
  				   regs, stack.  */
      char display[256];		/* Brief state display, name, 
! 				   blocked/syspended.  */
      char shortname[32];		/* To be used to name threads.  */
      char more_display[256];	/* Long info, statistics, queue depth, 
  				   whatever.  */
--- 1114,1120 ----
      int active;			/* Has state interesting to GDB? 
  				   regs, stack.  */
      char display[256];		/* Brief state display, name, 
! 				   blocked/suspended.  */
      char shortname[32];		/* To be used to name threads.  */
      char more_display[256];	/* Long info, statistics, queue depth, 
  				   whatever.  */
*************** remote_unpack_thread_info_response (char
*** 1489,1495 ****
    int mask, length;
    unsigned int tag;
    threadref ref;
!   char *limit = pkt + (rs->remote_packet_size);	/* plausable parsing limit */
    int retval = 1;
  
    /* info->threadid = 0; FIXME: implement zero_threadref.  */
--- 1489,1495 ----
    int mask, length;
    unsigned int tag;
    threadref ref;
!   char *limit = pkt + (rs->remote_packet_size);	/* plausible parsing limit */
    int retval = 1;
  
    /* info->threadid = 0; FIXME: implement zero_threadref.  */


On Tue, 24 May 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:13:32AM -0700, Wu Zhou wrote:
> > This is to fix a typo in remote.c, found while I am reading the 
> > source code.  Is this kind of patch welcomed?  If it is, should 
> > I add a changelog entry as well?  If not, please ignore it. 
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> The patch is fine - but yes, it does need a changelog entry.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery, LLC
> 
> 

Re: [RFC] Is this kind of patch welcomed?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 06:33:01AM -0700, Wu Zhou wrote:
> 
> OK.  Followed is the revised patch: another typo is fixed and changlog
> entry added. 
> 
> 2005-05-25  Wu Zhou  <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>
> 
> 	* remote.c: Fix two comment typos

Period at the end of changelog entries.  Also, you need to say where
you did it.

I've committed it with this ChangeLog:
2005-05-28  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>

        From Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>:
        * remote.c (struct gdb_ext_thread_info): Fix a comment typo.
        (remote_unpack_thread_info_response): Likewise.

[The comments are still formatted badly, but that's no excuse not to
fix the spelling!]

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [RFC] Is this kind of patch welcomed?

[Wu Zhou]

On Sat, 28 May 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> I've committed it with this ChangeLog:
> 2005-05-28  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>
> 
>         From Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>:
>         * remote.c (struct gdb_ext_thread_info): Fix a comment typo.
>         (remote_unpack_thread_info_response): Likewise.

Thanks for commiting this.  BTW, could I get the Write After Approval
access?  It is said that I need a valid FSF assignment and had ever 
submitted one good patch.  Who could recommend me for this? Thanks a
lot!

> 
> [The comments are still formatted badly, but that's no excuse not to
> fix the spelling!]
> 

OK.  What is the good style for the comments?  I guess that you might
means that the first comment should be in one line other than the code,
and the second comment should set its first character in uppercase, 
right?  I'd like to code another patch if you tell me what is the right
format.  Thanks.

Cheers
- Wu Zhou

Re: [RFC] Is this kind of patch welcomed?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 05:53:05AM -0700, Wu Zhou wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > I've committed it with this ChangeLog:
> > 2005-05-28  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>
> > 
> >         From Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>:
> >         * remote.c (struct gdb_ext_thread_info): Fix a comment typo.
> >         (remote_unpack_thread_info_response): Likewise.
> 
> Thanks for commiting this.  BTW, could I get the Write After Approval
> access?  It is said that I need a valid FSF assignment and had ever 
> submitted one good patch.  Who could recommend me for this? Thanks a
> lot!

Please fill out the form here:
  http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi

List me as the approver.

> > [The comments are still formatted badly, but that's no excuse not to
> > fix the spelling!]
> > 
> 
> OK.  What is the good style for the comments?  I guess that you might
> means that the first comment should be in one line other than the code,
> and the second comment should set its first character in uppercase, 
> right?  I'd like to code another patch if you tell me what is the right
> format.  Thanks.

Don't worry about it for now.  The file is full of similar comments;
fixing one or two isn't a big deal.  Eventually someone should go
through and proof the whole thing.  Comments are supposed to be
sentences, capitalized, with a period and two spaces at the end; we
generally ignore the full sentences bit, since it's awkwardly wordy,
but the formatting is still important.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [RFC] Is this kind of patch welcomed?

[Wu Zhou]

On Sun, 29 May 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> > Thanks for commiting this.  BTW, could I get the Write After Approval
> > access?  It is said that I need a valid FSF assignment and had ever 
> > submitted one good patch.  Who could recommend me for this? Thanks a
> > lot!
> 
> Please fill out the form here:
>   http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi
> 
> List me as the approver.

I had just filled out that form and listed you (drow@false.org) as the 
approver.  Thanks for offering to be approver.  
 
Cheers
- Wu Zhou