From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15940 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2003 05:52:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15932 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2003 05:52:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2003 05:52:08 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAB5q7M09700 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:52:07 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAB5q7626134; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:52:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAB5q6g0016611; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:52:07 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hAB5q1U05924; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:52:01 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 05:52:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031111055201.ZM5923@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Adam Fedor "Difference between RFC and RFA?" (Nov 10, 9:57pm) References: <8BB6C429-1403-11D8-A525-000A277AC1A4@doc.com> To: Adam Fedor , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Difference between RFC and RFA? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2 On Nov 10, 9:57pm, Adam Fedor wrote: > Well, I've probably been ignorant of this for too long. I've looked > around but haven't found anything that explains what the difference > between these two abbreviations is. RFA = Request For Approval RFC = Request For Comments An RFA is used to ask for approval on a patch. An RFC is frequently used by global maintainers to solicit comments on patches that they would like to commit in some specified period of time. (The time period is usually specified in the patch.) Other contributers may use RFC for patches that they are unsure of. Sometimes WIP (work in progress) is used in place of RFC. Usually these are larger patches which may need to be split up (and sometimes even cleaned up) before being submitted for approval. WIP patches are useful in that they provide a sort of road map for a sequence of RFA (or RFC) patches. A maintainer who is reviewing an RFA patch can look at the WIP patch in order to see the big picture. Kevin