Re: Patches submission policy change

Jan Beulich via Gdb
2024-04-03T08:50:54Z

On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Any concerns/objections?
>
> I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years
> even when the policy said not to. In most cases, the diff for the
> regenerated files is very small and it helps even in patch review to
> actually check if the configure.ac/m4 etc. changes result just in the
> expected changes and not some unrelated ones (e.g. caused by user using
> wrong version of autoconf/automake etc.).
> There can be exceptions, e.g. when in GCC we update from a new version
> of Unicode, the regenerated ucnid.h diff can be large and
> uname2c.h can be huge, such that it can trigger the mailing list size
> limits even when the patch is compressed, see e.g.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636427.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636426.html
> But I think most configure or Makefile changes should be pretty small,
> usual changes shouldn't rewrite everything in those files.

Which may then call for a policy saying "include generate script diff-s,
but don't include generated data file ones"? At least on the binutils
side, dealing (for CI) with what e.g. opcodes/*-gen produce ought to be
possible by having something along the lines of "maintainer mode light".

Jan