This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Syncing platform-specific bits with generic code (was: Markinputs being ZERO as unlikely __mul in powerpc)
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, rsa at us dot ibm dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:36:58 +0530
- Subject: Re: Syncing platform-specific bits with generic code (was: Markinputs being ZERO as unlikely __mul in powerpc)
- References: <CAAHN_R2=QYmJ=ntkDaZB7i0PVbneL4KxKO9Tqi97QmemcEdqyw@mail.gmail.com><5124FFAF.50308@redhat.com>
On 20 February 2013 22:24, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> "All maintainers listed in this file, including the Write After Approval
>> developers, are allowed to check in obvious fixes.
>
> I'm confused. Our MAINTAINER's page already says that?
>
> "Write after Consensus and/or approval from machine maintainer..."
>
> Where Consensus is a link to the Consensus page.
Not our MAINTAINERS page, it's the gdb MAINTAINERS file. Also, not
just that line, the entire block I put in double quotes. See the
"Obvious Fix Rule" here:
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gdb/MAINTAINERS?rev=1.503&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=src&only_with_tag=MAIN
> If something is missing form the Consensus page then we need to gather
> consensus and add it?
I was proposing instead that we allow maintainers to use their
judgement in considering what is obvious and reviewers give feedback
if a commit was not 'obvious' and ought to have been discussed since
there is a possibility of disagreement. Based on this, we can put in
*exclusions* to the obvious commit rule rather than inclusions.
--
http://siddhesh.in