On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:01:23AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > > Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: > >> This patch is obvious and it fixes breakage. Please go ahead and commit it. > > > > Sorry to pick on you here Steven, but this doesn't meet gcc's > > definition of an obvious patch. Don't believe me? See > > http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html#policies > > Hmm.... I guess the patch will have to be reverted, then :-) > > Or maybe this would be under the banner of "We don't want to get > overly anal-retentive about checkin policies."
We are not amused. Some lack-wit adviser told us it would be wise to not seem anal-retentive, whatever that means, and thus we allowed comment fixes against our better judgement. Don't you dare extend our magnanimous dispensation. :-) > In any case, it's not unprecedented that obviously obvious patches get > checked in even if they're not obvious according to that policy. To > list a few from just this month: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02989.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02975.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02970.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02972.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02496.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02331.html Oh no! There I am, listed with a bunch of other sinners. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
