From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18982 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2012 19:55:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 18972 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2012 19:55:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:55:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GJtIcV000996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:55:18 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GJtHJ1014420; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:55:17 -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 q0GJtFv2014051; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:55:16 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] Language independent bits References: <20120115203420.GA18901@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Sergio Durigan Junior's message of "Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:37:47 -0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (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: 2012-01/txt/msg00575.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Sergio" == Sergio Durigan Junior writes: Sergio> I already replaced `int' by `size_t'. Do you want me to revert Sergio> the change? No, there's no need to do additional work. My general rule is that we should review patches, not the context of patches. If the context of a patch has problems, and it matters to the reviewer, then either (1) the review can ask for a separate patch to fix it (and in this case accept "no" as an answer), or (2) the reviewer can fix it himself (since it is so darn important :-). Sometimes it can be hard to recognize that a particular gross bit in a patch was actually just moved from elsewhere. In this case, IMO, the patch submitter can and probably should just push back against the review -- whatever bad effect there was is already there. Of course, it is nice if we improve the code as we go along. I think it is usually easier to understand, and thus also review and approve, separate patches for separate issues. Tom