Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
Joshua N Pritikin <joshua.pritikin@db.com> writes: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 04:33:24AM -0700, rra@stanford.edu wrote: >> (Well, actually they have two lists, gcc and gcc-patches. But the >> second is largely due to the fact that there's a requirement that >> everything checked into the repository is also sent to the mailing list >> as a patch. Something that I think is *wonderful* as someone watching >> the project from outside, although I realize that it's a bit hard to >> get to the point where you're in the habit of doing that.) > Why? Perforce can send out patches *automatically*. Because if the patch is at all complicated, the human also includes an explanation. There's of course already a lot of this with Perl; most patches do seem to go to p5p. I'm just not sure that all of them do, and I've found it interesting that it's a matter of policy in gcc development. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>Thread Previous | Thread Next