This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: yao at codesourcery dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:21:21 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1383458049-20893-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1383458049-20893-5-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <83k3gpa0hf dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22ToZGdnbnPjOEbq6uvcBHjmjCAiU9FYskKMGLSpiPgJCA at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:15:10 -0800
> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
> Cc: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>
> > Thanks. But may I ask in the future not to split the patches to
> > documentation that are related to the same series? When you split
> > them, it makes the review harder, as I see the documentation changes
> > piecemeal, rather than together.
>
> That may be hard to apply in general.
I don't see why it would be. Can you elaborate?
> For code we ask people to split such things out.
> I can well imagine people applying the same logic to documentation.
> I don't know that it necessarily applies here, but it could.
Sorry, I don't understand: what logic?
What I'm asking is not request me to review a 15-line change to
documentation in 5 3-line pieces.