Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
Re: patch trail
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Joshua N Pritikin
Date:
July 24, 2000 13:25
Subject:
Re: patch trail
Message ID:
20000724162552.N3716@ghostwheel.wks.na.deuba.com
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:14:15PM -0700, rra@stanford.edu wrote:
> 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.
Still, I think automatic patch announcements are better than "gee, I
forgot to post an explanation" three months (or years) after the fact.
$0.02
--
May the best description of competition prevail.
(via, but not speaking for Deutsche Bank)
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next