From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22804 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2013 01:52:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22790 invoked by uid 89); 27 Nov 2013 01:52:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: vlsi1.gnat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO vlsi1.gnat.com) (205.232.38.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 01:52:25 +0000 Received: by vlsi1.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 3004) id 8FA8733C9D; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:52:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:13:00 -0000 To: amodra@gmail.com Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy Cc: dewar@adacore.com, dje.gcc@gmail.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, mikestump@comcast.net, stevenb.gcc@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20131127014503.GG9211@bubble.grove.modra.org> References: <20131120090429.GT30563@lug-owl.de> <20131126051718.GQ3588@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20131126102146.GA9211@bubble.grove.modra.org> <5295190A.4070205@adacore.com> <20131127014503.GG9211@bubble.grove.modra.org> Message-Id: <20131127015217.8FA8733C9D@vlsi1.gnat.com> From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg03447.txt.bz2 > The thing about written policy is that it sets the tone for a project. > A restrictive policy tends to authoritarian rule by maintainers, it > seems to me. And a too little restrictive policy runs the risk of creating a feeling that the rules aren't necessarily to be taken too seriously. Neither outcome is good.