This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch] vms.c: remove unreachable code
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: [patch] vms.c: remove unreachable code
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:49:40 -0800
Hi Guys,
: OK. We really should have an obvious fix rule. Nick?
Yes we should. It has come up several time in the past few weeks, so
I think that it should be done. What do people think of this wording?
Cheers
Nick
Index: binutils/MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src//src/binutils/MAINTAINERS,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -p -r1.15 MAINTAINERS
*** MAINTAINERS 2000/12/16 01:28:21 1.15
--- MAINTAINERS 2001/02/13 19:48:56
*************** one of the above lists (blanket write or
*** 76,78 ****
--- 76,89 ----
[It's a huge list, folks. You know who you are. If you have the
*ability* to do binutils checkins, you're in this group. Just remember
to get approval before checking anything in.]
+
+ ------------- Obvious Fixes -------------
+
+ Fixes for obvious mistakes do not need approval, and can be checked in
+ right away, but the patch should still be sent to the binutils list.
+ The definition of obvious is a bit hazy, and if you are not sure, then
+ you should seek approval first. Obvious fixes include fixes for
+ spelling mistakes, blatantly incorrect code (where the correct code is
+ also blatantly obvious), and so on. Obvious fixes should always be
+ small, the larger they are, the more likely it is that they contain
+ some un-obvious side effect or consequence.