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

[Tyson Dowd]

On 02-Aug-2001, Mark Brown <dougl at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> 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".

Patch is a good word for it, but it does highlight the fact that patch
means almost exactly the same thing as diff, which we already use to
mean something you intend to commit.

So "unused diff" or "uncommitted diff" or "informative diff" would be
fine by me.

Tyson.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------