llvm dev - Oct 2002 - [LLVMdev] Compile error in include/Support/GraphWriter.h

Bill? Wendling wrote:
>Also sprach Casey Carter:
>} Issue: GraphWriter includes <ostream>, which my gcc2 apparently
thinks
>} is <ostream.h>.
>} Fix: Make a new <Support/ostream> that handles this discrepancy, ala
>} <Support/hash_set>.
>} 
>Um...was it entirely necessary to issue *8* email messages to the group
>with mostly single-line fixes instead of just one email with all of the
>fixes and an explanation for each?
>
>  
>
Actually, yes it was.  Proper netiquette when submitting to a technical 
list is to have a single topic per message.  This makes it easy to track 
issues individually, without the messiness that occurs from bundling 
several issues together in a single missive.  One large email with a big 
lump of diffs is much less clear, and takes substantially more effort to 
parse:  Are the patches independent?  Which fix corresponds to which 
problem?

Being new to this group, I am simply acting as my experience dictates 
and discussing these issues in the way I feel is best.  If my 
infamiliarity with the group causes me to occasionally act against what 
is common practice here, I will appreciate it when you inform me that I 
have done so and what the proper approach should be.  

-- 
Casey Carter
Casey at Carter.net
ccarter at uiuc.edu
AIM: cartec69

Also sprach Casey Carter:
} Bill? Wendling wrote:
} 
} >Um...was it entirely necessary to issue *8* email messages to the group
} >with mostly single-line fixes instead of just one email with all of the
} >fixes and an explanation for each?
} >
} > 
} >
} Actually, yes it was.  Proper netiquette when submitting to a technical 
} list is to have a single topic per message.  This makes it easy to track 
} issues individually, without the messiness that occurs from bundling 
} several issues together in a single missive.  One large email with a big 
} lump of diffs is much less clear, and takes substantially more effort to 
} parse:  Are the patches independent?  Which fix corresponds to which 
} problem?
} 
Since it's also proper netiquette not to spam too much, this will be the
end of this thread for me.

What you say is all true. However, the changes you made were very small
(though necessary) and not really subject to the difficulties in parsing
through them that you mentioned. Most consisted of single-line fixes (as
I mentioned above), and a lot of them obvious fixes.

} Being new to this group, I am simply acting as my experience dictates 
} and discussing these issues in the way I feel is best.  If my 
} infamiliarity with the group causes me to occasionally act against what 
} is common practice here, I will appreciate it when you inform me that I 
} have done so and what the proper approach should be.  
}
I vote for simple/obvious fixes to be combined in one email. I may exist
as a sole entity in feeling this way, but so be it. If others would like
such fixes to be concatenated, feel free to pipe in. If, on the other
hand, people feel that such fixes should be separated, then the consensus
should win out.

Keep in mind, I'm only suggesting this for simple/obvious fixes. Not for
more complex ones which require more detailed descriptions and are more
properly separated into multiple emails, IMHO.

Democracy is fun :-)

-- 
|| Bill? Wendling			wendling at isanbard.org

I'll jump in just to repeat to all listeners what I suggested to Casey:
please send patches to Nick Hildenbrandt (hldnbrnd at uiuc.edu) and not to
llvmdev.  I think Casey's right that individual patches are easier to
deal with, but Nick can apply patches and use his discretion about
notifying everyone if a fix seems worth broadcasting.

Of course, patches are very welcome.  Casey's fixes have been invaluable
with the Linux port so, for the record, thanks!

--Vikram


> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-admin at cs.uiuc.edu 
> [mailto:llvmdev-admin at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Bill? Wendling
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:50 AM
> To: Casey Carter
> Cc: LLVMdev List
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Compile error in include/Support/GraphWriter.h
> 
> 
> Also sprach Casey Carter:
> } Bill? Wendling wrote:
> } 
> } >Um...was it entirely necessary to issue *8* email messages 
> to the group } >with mostly single-line fixes instead of just 
> one email with all of the } >fixes and an explanation for 
> each? } > } > 
> } >
> } Actually, yes it was.  Proper netiquette when submitting to 
> a technical 
> } list is to have a single topic per message.  This makes it 
> easy to track 
> } issues individually, without the messiness that occurs from 
> bundling 
> } several issues together in a single missive.  One large 
> email with a big 
> } lump of diffs is much less clear, and takes substantially 
> more effort to 
> } parse:  Are the patches independent?  Which fix corresponds 
> to which 
> } problem?
> } 
> Since it's also proper netiquette not to spam too much, this 
> will be the end of this thread for me.
> 
> What you say is all true. However, the changes you made were 
> very small (though necessary) and not really subject to the 
> difficulties in parsing through them that you mentioned. Most 
> consisted of single-line fixes (as I mentioned above), and a 
> lot of them obvious fixes.
> 
> } Being new to this group, I am simply acting as my 
> experience dictates 
> } and discussing these issues in the way I feel is best.  If my 
> } infamiliarity with the group causes me to occasionally act 
> against what 
> } is common practice here, I will appreciate it when you 
> inform me that I 
> } have done so and what the proper approach should be.  
> }
> I vote for simple/obvious fixes to be combined in one email. 
> I may exist as a sole entity in feeling this way, but so be 
> it. If others would like such fixes to be concatenated, feel 
> free to pipe in. If, on the other hand, people feel that such 
> fixes should be separated, then the consensus should win out.
> 
> Keep in mind, I'm only suggesting this for simple/obvious 
> fixes. Not for more complex ones which require more detailed 
> descriptions and are more properly separated into multiple 
> emails, IMHO.
> 
> Democracy is fun :-)
> 
> -- 
> || Bill? Wendling			wendling at isanbard.org
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>