From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81A093851C20 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:20:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 81A093851C20 Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id y19so36468095lfa.13 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 02:20:56 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XV6bVzYl868pzLtkU7cU0LllOtvkDOhQuaCgdAAliQU=; b=nqjhkLMzLS6V7yuGeuzsyFzWlljDQPPHMwwG3rYNM8y7ppTXoiKWyeFoOaDKjv3pMh PAOlXlaioK03c2to4iKX3UiW9g8MlglKivGzDnAGSMZAMKRMAIU7kZbZqfzmUg5iug0r hZozdKavjVjPOMOBGqysl7qEdkFLNx7fQQMngWtwfT9chXRZ5DAQzxRS8HaGFI3BoXm9 63UgCkVma7q1vd+g0dC9gmg997igz+yPEzBaShZfBntQQKeps5Va92pmdpFstoGpDV0E g7bUmB+4Um0XybOvIQYg9JMA9GcwmwVuzkvd737sloMJyyxX1YXk3doWe77XtF2DrmT0 zyLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533G034fKNX0YR9bQG5mDn4hQZqkEqzstSMg+6hVbqobveP2RNm8 bKrxcd292xZMM9ATT/MHoM+5mvyRS8xVoqM0ObE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxpygA6jdNpQZfMPtNCYObogeo3xMzVLFehvZ/zdCSqesQR810fcMv7fAGYz0TVFJhWe3OK1H9URgG1fxRuFz0= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5e74:: with SMTP id a20mr21246362lfr.81.1609323655279; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 02:20:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5bc3cdf7-db6e-85d2-cf86-a16fa1756f2e@netcologne.de> In-Reply-To: <5bc3cdf7-db6e-85d2-cf86-a16fa1756f2e@netcologne.de> From: Paul Richard Thomas Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:20:43 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Backports of foreign patches? To: Thomas Koenig Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: fortran@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Fortran mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:20:58 -0000 Hi Harald, I agree completely with Thomas on this. That said, don't be too diligent about it. The gcc version with Fedora 33 is 10.2.1 and I presume that other distros are keeping similarly up to date. Regards Paul On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 at 09:53, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote: > Hi Harald, > > What I'm writing below is my personal opinion, if anybody feels > differently, please chime in. > > > just a hypothetical question: assume that some patch for a regression > was > > applied only to e.g. master some time ago but might be worth a backport, > > the regression was indicated in the PR, and the patch author does not > answer > > any related queries in the PR? > > > > How could/should/would one proceed? > > > > Would it be acceptable to backport the patch after a sufficient > waiting time > > (at least e.g. one or two months)? > > I would say yes. Using "git gcc-backport" automatically credits > the original author, so that's OK. Regarding the time frame, it > probably makes sense to backport before the next release of that > particular branch. > > That is, if it does apply cleanly. If there is some work needed > that exceeds being cosmetic, then this would in effect be a new > patch, which would require review. > > > With a notification to the ML? > > Not needed if it applies cleanly. > > > Or does > > it require an additional OK from a reviewer? > > Only if it is a substantial rewrite (see above). > > > Or would one pass an invisible red line? > > Certainly not for me - I would feel bad about not reacting > in the first place, but not about somebody backporting > one of my patches. > > Best regards > > Thomas > -- "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein