Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [commit] Mention VAX floating-point support in NEWS
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:00:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <vt2sluept7z.fsf@theseus.home.> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <uek5y99lq.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:40:33 +0200")


Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> I fail to see how asking for approval of a 2-liner, and a day or two
> of delay waiting for responses, could possibly affect productivity.
> For that matter, I don't see how changes in NEWS can affect
> development in the first place.

It's three E-mails instead of one.  It's another pending change to
keep track of until the approval comes through.

But this wasn't really your point: if I'm reading your messages right,
you felt that 1) Joel was arguing that it was okay for Mark to
sidestep established practices because it would be more productive if
those practices where changed; and that 2) policies should be changed
through discussion and agreement, not just by following the policies
you wish you had.

I'll buy the second thesis, but I doubt the first.  Rather than seeing
Joel's mail as a post-facto justification for Mark's commit, why not
read it as a suggestion that we discuss and change the policy?
Looking at the archives, I think it reads just as well both ways.

<returning from the meta-meta-discussion to the meta-discussion>

I agree that NEWS is user-level documentation, and should be held to a
higher standard of general comprehensibility than, say, ChangeLog
entries.  I think there's a lot to be said for having a single person
in charge of editing the entries and keeping them grouped in some
logical fashion; when everyone just tacks stuff on at the front, it
gets kind of incoherent.  Given that Eli has been consistently
responsive to doc changes for years, I don't think this will be much
of a bottleneck.

<returning from the meta-discussion to the discussion>

Mark's change seems user-presentable and reasonably placed to me.


  reply	other threads:[~2005-11-02 22:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-11-01  7:31 Mark Kettenis
2005-11-01 19:54 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-11-01 20:56   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-02  4:32     ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-11-01 21:22   ` Mark Kettenis
2005-11-02  4:40     ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-11-01 23:00   ` Joel Brobecker
2005-11-02  5:18     ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-11-02  5:55       ` Joel Brobecker
2005-11-02 20:34         ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-11-02 23:00           ` Jim Blandy [this message]
2005-11-02 23:04             ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-03  1:34               ` Jim Blandy
2005-11-03  6:58               ` Eli Zaretskii

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=vt2sluept7z.fsf@theseus.home. \
    --to=jimb@redhat.com \
    --cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox