From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cornelia Huck Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:04:58 +0000 Subject: Re: Software evolution around scripts for the semantic patch langugae Message-Id: <20160825230458.7fc85c66.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <82b84c9c-38a4-4d17-910f-312668dbae01@users.sourceforge.net> <20160825181009.381411d9.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julia Lawall Cc: SF Markus Elfring , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Christian =?UTF-8?B?Qm9ybnRyw6RnZXI=?= , David Hildenbrand , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?UTF-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Walter Harms On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Julia Lawall wrote: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > Or some close variant. > > > > I have got more script variants evolving in my software collection. > > > > There are further approaches available from various contributors, > > aren't there? > > What she is asking for is a concise and precise decription of what you > have done. If you have some other variants, eg controlling where the > sizeof argument is (left or right of *), you don't necessarily have to > include it in the patch, if such a rule was not used for the specific > patch anyway. *nod* If I see a patch that says "I've run the following cocchinelle patch to perform $TRANSFORMATION, and here's the result", I can be reasonably sure that the result will be what is intended to be changed in the first place (and I can assess whether the change makes sense at all.) If I see only the resulting patch, I won't know whether you have performed the changes manually (and possibly introduced bugs, as happens to all of us.) Moreover, a good semantic patch is useful to others as well and might even be reused in other contexts that have similar requirements. You really lose value if you don't publish them.