patch description missing for gcc

Bill maltby - LFS Related lfsbill at wlmcs.com
Fri Oct 18 11:22:57 PDT 2002


On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On October 13, 2002 10:28 am, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> >  Maybe this policy should be rethought regarding patches. The
> >  information
> 
> Maybe it should.
> 
> Anybody else has something to say on the issue? If not I go with the usual "he 
> who is silent agrees" (converted phrase from Dutch into English in case you 
> wonder where it comes from).

Rock<->hard-spot. If you are trying to satisfy a more experienced
community: a) they can read and understand the patch themselves; b) they
are more likely to need to know what the patch does (and subtle
side-effects) and that may not be obvious from the patch contents (it
would save them time at least, if not heart-ache).

If you are trying to make it easy for less-experienced users: a) 1
mega-patch with no description is easiest for them; b) the educational
value is reduced; c) individual patches with individual descriptions are
more work.

Pick your audience!  :)

-- 
Bill Maltby
billm at wlmcs.com

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list