[LLVMdev] Compile error in include/Support/GraphWriter.h

Vikram S. Adve vadve at cs.uiuc.edu
Mon Oct 28 07:01:01 PST 2002

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!


> -----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

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list