Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc

[Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> 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?

We actively ask people to do the opposite for code.
So we would have one rule for code and the opposite rule for docs.
Sometimes a patch series will have several doc additions, that while
collectively may appear as one doc patch, the submitter chose to break
them up to keep them with their respective code parts.
I think it should be ok if someone did that ... we have a lot of rules
to what is an acceptable patch already.

>> 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.

See my point above.

Can I suggest that we allow any GM to approve doc changes.
We need all the review bandwidth we can get.
And *even* if they make mistakes sometimes, *that's ok*'.  Even better.
Mistakes are great teachers (if handled appropriately). :-)