[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Patches with independent changes

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Patches with independent changes
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:46 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
A variable that becomes unused as result of
a change should be removed as part of that change.

That guideline makes sense to me too. Some other software projects don't do that: their developers split such patches into pieces, one to remove the need for a variable, the other to remove the variable. To my mind this is mostly make-work, and its costs exceed its benefits, and I'm glad we don't insist on such things with Emacs.

  > you cannot chmod a file that is open ... the chmod call will fail.

Where is this documented?  Does the problem occur if any process has the
file open, or only if the current process has it open?  What is errno
after the failure?  This problem does not occur on POSIXish platforms;
if it happens under Microsoft Windows the incompatibility should be
documented (in Gnulib, if the problem is generic to GNU applications).

Then document it, please.

We shouldn't document a statement that may be mistaken.

Removal of this code _could_ have constituted an additional change
unrelated to the original bug.

The patch I mentioned is simpler than the patch in trunk bzr 116116. It's not an additional change compared to 116116; on the contrary, 116116 is the one containing an additional change.

That being said, I agree that we should let this code alone during the feature freeze.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]