From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18910 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2004 04:02:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18893 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2004 04:02:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.9) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Oct 2004 04:02:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 17829 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2004 04:02:08 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.105?) (mitchell@127.0.0.1) by mail.codesourcery.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 2004 04:02:08 -0000 Message-ID: <41734039.8070006@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:19:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Bosscher CC: Jakub Jelinek , Matt Austern , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [Committed] Use special-purpose hash table to speed up walk_tree References: <200410161217.43614.stevenb@suse.de> <4172086B.4080106@codesourcery.com> <200410171158.29730.stevenb@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <200410171158.29730.stevenb@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg01447.txt.bz2 Steven Bosscher wrote: >On Sunday 17 October 2004 07:51, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > >>I don't think there is any such policy one way or the other. Certainly, >>there is precedent for patches being approved offline. >> >> > >I know there is, and I think it's wrong. More eyes see more >things. > > Yes, but I do have the authority to approve patches. If we had a no-offline-approval policy, what would have happenned is that Matt would have posted the patch, and I would have immediately approved it. That's no different that me approving the patch offline; we would still have had a broken patch committed to the tree. To make things more substantive, we could require that all patches be posted for a period of time (24 hrs?) before being approved. That seems silly though; some patches are very obvious. So, we'd have to make judgement calls about what's appropriate in what situations. If I'd anticipated problems, I would have just asked for further testing in the first place. In short, I don't see that there's a policy problem. If there's a problem, it's just that I didn't anticipate the 64-bit mode issues, but, hey, we all make mistakes. >Can we make it a requirement that larger patches like this should >be tested on three platforms when the mainline is in stage3? > > I don't think this is a large patch. I actually thought it was pretty straightforward. It did have a bug, but that happens sometime. I don't think that requiring testing on three platforms for this kind of patch would be profitable, overall. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC (916) 791-8304 mark@codesourcery.com