On 2024-04-04 17:35, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
>> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
>> workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
>> that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during the
>> last GNU toolchain office hours meeting [1] (2024-03-28).
>>
>> Benefits or this change include:
>> - Increased compatibility with precommit CI
>> - No need to manually edit patches before submitting, thus the “git
>> send-email” workflow is simplified
>> - Patch reviewers can be confident that the committed patch will be
>> exactly what they approved
>> - Precommit CI can test exactly what has been submitted
>>
>> Any concerns/objections?
>
> I am all for it. It will make testing patches easier for everyone.
>
> I do think we still need a better way to make sure all generated files
> can be regenerated. If only to check that the files were generated
> correctly with the correct versions. The autoregen buildbots are able
> to catch some, but not all such mistakes.
>
> wrt to the mailinglists maybe getting larger patches, I think most
> will still be under 400K and I wouldn't raise the limit (because most
> such larger emails are really just spam). But we might want to get
> more mailinglist moderators.
>
> gcc-patches, binutils and gdb-patches all have only one moderator
> (Jeff, Ian and Thiago). It would probably be good if there were
> more.
>
> Any volunteers? It shouldn't be more than 1 to 3 emails a week
> (sadly most of them spam).
I can help with the various gdb mailing lists.
Simon
