Re: PATCH (gdb/mi)

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il>]

> From: Nick Roberts <nick@nick.uklinux.net>
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:15:08 +0000
> 
> I'll gladly do this but I thought that the patch needs to be approved first.

That's fine with me: you don't need to waste your time working on the
docs if you aren't sure the code will be accepted.  Just don't forget
to add the docs once the code is approved.

> Finally the CONTRIBUTE file doesn't ask for documentation to be
> included when submitting a patch.

It's been suggested to add such a requirement (and even remove
undocumented features already present in the code base), but I
personally never had the resolve to actually do that.  It sounds too
drastic a measure.

> Perhaps I've used the wrong subject header and it looks like the patch has
> already been committed. My impression now is that:
> 
> RFC is for maintainers who ask for comments before committing their own patch.
> RFA is for those with write after approval.
> commit is for a patch that has been committed.

That's not what I know.  RFC is for any contributor who is not sure
the concept she is proposing is valid.  RFA is for when there are no
doubts about the concept, but the actual implementation needs an
approval.

> PATCH seems, generally, to be for a commit also.

That should be COMMIT, I think.

> Most people who post to this list have some kind of write access to the
> repository.

That might be true, but I don't think that's a requirement.  Anyone
could use those categories, AFAIK.