| Message ID | 544CA0EB.8030205@pacific.net |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 26 Oct 2014 00:21, ricaljasan wrote:
> 2014-10-25 Rical Jasan <redacted>
that's not how it works. i guess you want to use ricaljasan@pacific.net ?
patch looks fine to me otherwise.
-mike
On 03/05/2015 11:08 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 26 Oct 2014 00:21, ricaljasan wrote: >> 2014-10-25 Rical Jasan <redacted> > > that's not how it works. i guess you want to use ricaljasan@pacific.net ? > > patch looks fine to me otherwise. > -mike > Fair enough. That address is fine with me. :) OOC, is there a lifetime on submitted patches? I see you must be going through pending or otherwise queued submissions. I have been working more or less regularly on grammar and formatting patches for the manual, but the glibc manual is quite a large document to read, let alone edit. I had some other manual patches submitted, but those may have been a little (too) early in the editing process, so I'd actually prefer they be forgotten. It's taken a while to develop a consistent style and scope and I'd rather submit a more cohesive set later. I can reply/forward with a NACK, if that's the best thing to do. This patch is fine to submit, as it is independent of the other work I'm doing. Thank you for following up. Rical Jasan
On 05 Mar 2015 18:35, ricaljasan wrote: > OOC, is there a lifetime on submitted patches? not really. i happened to not have deleted your e-mails as they looked like no one followed up, and i've been clearing out some old unread posts to this list. we have patchwork to try and prevent old patches from getting lost/ignored: http://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/ > I have been working > more or less regularly on grammar and formatting patches for the manual, > but the glibc manual is quite a large document to read, let alone edit. if you're looking at doing more work, then we probably should make sure you have copyright assignment in place. have you gone through that process yet ? > I had some other manual patches submitted, but those may have been a > little (too) early in the editing process, so I'd actually prefer they > be forgotten. It's taken a while to develop a consistent style and > scope and I'd rather submit a more cohesive set later. I can > reply/forward with a NACK, if that's the best thing to do. ok, i'll delete all the pending ones from you in my inbox and purge them from patchwork: http://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/?submitter=431 > This patch is fine to submit, as it is independent of the other work I'm > doing. Thank you for following up. i'll push this one since it's just deleting lines and you don't really need copyright assignment to *delete* things :). -mike
On 03/05/2015 09:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > if you're looking at doing more work, then we probably should make sure you have > copyright assignment in place. have you gone through that process yet ? Nope; probably since the other submissions were never committed. (Which does make this my first patch. :) Happy to get the ball rolling though. > i'll push this one since it's just deleting lines and you don't really need > copyright assignment to *delete* things :). I thought you reviewed this. I made at least one line of material change - now the example function works. ;) Thanks for pointing out patchwork, btw. So much easier to read patches there than the digest. And thanks again for following up and taking care of the loose ends. Sincerely, Rical Jasan
On 05 Mar 2015 22:25, ricaljasan wrote: > On 03/05/2015 09:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > if you're looking at doing more work, then we probably should make sure you have > > copyright assignment in place. have you gone through that process yet ? > > Nope; probably since the other submissions were never committed. (Which > does make this my first patch. :) Happy to get the ball rolling though. https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist?highlight=%28checklist%29#FSF_copyright_Assignment basically follow this form: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future > > i'll push this one since it's just deleting lines and you don't really need > > copyright assignment to *delete* things :). > > I thought you reviewed this. I made at least one line of material > change - now the example function works. ;) sorry, i confused your patch with the one i wrote while reviewing yours -mike
On 03/05/2015 10:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 05 Mar 2015 22:25, ricaljasan wrote: >> On 03/05/2015 09:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> if you're looking at doing more work, then we probably should make sure you have >>> copyright assignment in place. have you gone through that process yet ? >> >> Nope; probably since the other submissions were never committed. (Which >> does make this my first patch. :) Happy to get the ball rolling though. > > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist?highlight=%28checklist%29#FSF_copyright_Assignment > > basically follow this form: > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future That process is now started. > >>> i'll push this one since it's just deleting lines and you don't really need >>> copyright assignment to *delete* things :). >> >> I thought you reviewed this. I made at least one line of material >> change - now the example function works. ;) > > sorry, i confused your patch with the one i wrote while reviewing yours > -mike > Is that the general approach I should take while fixing the manual, then? Cleaner diffs, I suppose, than: sed '/subjective cruft/{s/.*/@c &/}' Rical Jasan
On 06 Mar 2015 00:44, ricaljasan wrote: > Is that the general approach I should take while fixing the manual, > then? Cleaner diffs, I suppose, than: > > sed '/subjective cruft/{s/.*/@c &/}' honestly, the smaller/more self contained your patches, the more likely they are to get reviewed/merged. larger patches that combine multiple changes into one are significantly less likely to get reviewed. especially changes to the manual. will power is a commodity. -mike
On 03/06/2015 01:14 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > honestly, the smaller/more self contained your patches, the more likely they are > to get reviewed/merged. larger patches that combine multiple changes into one > are significantly less likely to get reviewed. especially changes to the > manual. will power is a commodity. And how. Not to make this an eternal thread, but you touched on one of my major editing struggles, and this patch holds a perfect example. I've managed to narrow the scope of my edits to (what I consider) essential grammar, and keep a few to-do lists for other clean-ups when I'm done. I'm not so concerned that I will have too large a scope of edits - there are going to be a lot no matter what - but I recognize the need to keep the diffs easily readable. This is somewhat for posterity, esp. given how patchwork displays the thread with the patch, which I can use for illustration, but I'm also curious if you or any other developer who might care to weigh in would consider my final conclusion appropriate. Example. If I were to redo the patch from this thread, one thing that bugged me was the reformatting of the entire compatibility note after the deletion of the first sentence. Having to read that after a few months, it took me a few glances back and forth to see what I did - which wound up only being a change to the first line. Reformatting the whole paragraph actually induces a need to inspect the entire thing more closely than normal, looking for changes that aren't even there, when one could have simply glanced and seen it all. I think the prevailing rationale at the time was obey-the-laws-of-the-land ...and anything you touch, bring into 72-column widths. I swear I read that once somewhere, specifically for the manual, and have never been able to find it again. In reality, the law of manual-land is something like, "Eh, 72-ish is OK." Were I to add new content (not happening in the proofing phase anyway), I would format my paragraphs uniformly, but I think edits are fine to only touch what they need and line-lengths be damned. (<-conclusion) To support my 72-ish hypothesis, I couldn't help writing a quick histogram in awk. The following will provide the full graph; attached is a slice from line lengths of 50 to 85, where you can see a sharp preference for 72. awk ' { len=length(); if (len>=0) { hist[len]++; } } END { printf "len cnt\n--- ---\n"; for (i=0; i<length(hist); i++) { printf "%3d %d\n", i, hist[i]; } }' manual/*.texi len cnt --- --- 50 292 51 303 52 277 53 279 54 316 55 306 56 317 57 406 58 458 59 497 60 604 61 600 62 753 63 922 64 1143 65 1351 66 1635 67 2055 68 2443 69 2972 70 3357 71 3097 72 3063 73 621 74 452 75 278 76 184 77 158 78 126 79 77 80 40 81 49 82 37 83 33 84 32 85 28
diff --git a/manual/errno.texi b/manual/errno.texi index eb9617e..8d575a7 100644 --- a/manual/errno.texi +++ b/manual/errno.texi @@ -1380,6 +1380,8 @@ This variable's value is the name that was used to invoke the program running in the current process. It is the same as @code{argv[0]}. Note that this is not necessarily a useful file name; often it contains no directory names. @xref{Program Arguments}. + +This variable is a GNU extension and is declared in @file{errno.h}. @end deftypevar @comment errno.h @@ -1389,17 +1391,19 @@ This variable's value is the name that was used to invoke the program running in the current process, with directory names removed. (That is to say, it is the same as @code{program_invocation_name} minus everything up to the last slash, if any.) + +This variable is a GNU extension and is declared in @file{errno.h}. @end deftypevar The library initialization code sets up both of these variables before calling @code{main}. -@strong{Portability Note:} These two variables are GNU extensions. If -you want your program to work with non-GNU libraries, you must save the -value of @code{argv[0]} in @code{main}, and then strip off the directory -names yourself. We added these extensions to make it possible to write -self-contained error-reporting subroutines that require no explicit -cooperation from @code{main}. +@strong{Portability Note:} If you want your program to work with +non-GNU libraries, you must save the value of @code{argv[0]} in +@code{main}, and then strip off the directory names yourself. We +added these extensions to make it possible to write self-contained +error-reporting subroutines that require no explicit cooperation from +@code{main}. Here is an example showing how to correctly handle failure to open a file. The function @code{open_sesame} tries to open the named file @@ -1413,6 +1417,8 @@ save it in a local variable instead, because those other library functions might overwrite @code{errno} in the meantime. @smallexample +#define _GNU_SOURCE + #include <errno.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h>
Previously unquoted #include at beginning of line caused it to disappear from commit message. Diff unchanged. ---- The manual gives "an example showing how to handle failure to open a file correctly." The example function, open_sesame, uses the newly-introduced strerror function and errno and program_invocation_short_name variables. It fails to specify GNU extensions, however, so attempts to use it in the following way: int main (void) {open_sesame ("badname");} fail during compilation with "error: ‘program_invocation_short_name’ undeclared", indicating the example is incomplete. The presence of "#include"s suggest everything neccesary for the function to work should be present. For completeness, the example is lacking the following line: #define _GNU_SOURCE as the declarations of program_invocation_*name in errno.h are wrapped in an "#ifdef __USE_GNU" conditional. The documentation of the variables is also expanded, adding that their definition lies in errno.h and noting specifically they are GNU extensions. manual/errno.texi: Complete example function and expand documentation of program_invocation*_name variables. 2014-10-25 Rical Jasan <redacted> * manual/errno.texi (Error Messages): Complete example function by adding missing #define. (program_invocation_name): Add statement indicating GNU extension and reference which header file declares the variable. (program_invocation_short_name): Likewise.