change log for rtems (2011-06-29)

[Joel Sherrill]

On 06/30/2011 11:51 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 07/01/2011 01:10 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 30/06/11 11:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> If this was GCC, Jennifer's patch would have been immediately be
>>> reverted.
>>>
>> We are not gcc.
> Right. That's why I didn't immediately revert it and provided an
> explanation, instead.
And if you had done so, you wouldn't even have followed
gcc policy.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-04/msg00061.html

That was the beginning of a recent discussion of
gcc reversion policy.  Notice this discussion
was  focused on actually breaking something
functional.

But GCC policy is to allow for 48 hours before
reverting a patch, if "two people with write privileges to the
affected area of the compiler determine that the best course of action
is to revert the patch", whatever that means exactly. And even then,
reverting is not allowed unless "the original poster or any other
party [indicates] that a fix will be forthcoming in the very near
future".

The first course of action is to politely ask the committer
to fix the issue in a timely manner.

This was a minor oversight by Jennifer when adding a
ChangeLog entry.  Anyone COULD have fixed it.  The
submitter was a GSoC student and submitted via
Bugzilla.

This is really making a mountain out of a mole hill.

End of discussion.

> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-vc mailing list
> rtems-vc at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-vc


-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research&  Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
    Support Available             (256) 722-9985