From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12495 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2011 18:24:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 12484 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2011 18:24:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:24:14 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAMINoa7015147 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:23:50 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAMINoYC011282; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:23:50 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAMINmEW008973; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:23:48 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Mike Frysinger , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Andrey Smirnov , Marek Polacek Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/348] Fix -Wsahdow warnings References: <878vn88fw3.fsf@gmail.com> <4ECBA525.1010801@redhat.com> <201111221027.52484.vapier@gentoo.org> <20111122160539.GA22283@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20111122160539.GA22283@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:05:39 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00597.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: >> please condense down your patches if you resend. there's way too many >> little tiny ones that really should be squashed into a single >> changeset. Joel> In my view, if the patches can be checked in independently, then Joel> it is a good thing that they are split. Imagine the situation where Joel> one of these changes is bad, we'd then be able to revert that one Joel> patch, rather than fixing by hand. I think a bit more batching would be ok. It doesn't really matter to me, though, I will go through them all either way. >> your ChangeLogs are also incorrect. it should not be: >> * bcache.c (expand_hash_table): Fix -Wshadow warnings. >> but rather: >> * bcache.c (expand_hash_table): Rename bcache to cache. Joel> I'm 50/50 on this. I don't mind either way. What do others think? Joel> Is that really that important that we must create boring extra work Joel> for Andrey? I can't imagine rewriting 348 ChangeLog entries. Tom