[m-rev.] patch: add infrastructure for building GCC back-end on bobo

[Mark Brown]

On 02-Aug-2001, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> Sometimes I implement something, find that it doesn't work, and hence
> decide not to commit the patch, but nevertheless think that the patch
> is worth posting to mercury-reviews to (a) communicate to the other
> Mercury developers that a particular approach has been tried and failed,
> (b) show other Mercury developers how to implement that approach, and
> (c) preserve the patch in the archives in case it is ever needed.
> 
> The example below is a case in point.
> 
> For cases like this, I propose to use a new prefix "patch:".
> This is a bit like "diff:" or "for review:" except that it
> indicates that the poster does NOT intend to commit the change.
> 

I agree it is a good idea to have a new prefix for this purpose, but I
don't like "patch".  The difference between a "diff" and a "patch" seems
a bit obscure to me.  IMHO, a better prefix would be like "trivial diff"
but with an appropriate adjective substituted for "trivial"; say "unused
diff" or maybe "uncommitted diff".

Cheers,
Mark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------