From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5552 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2011 03:18:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 5527 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2011 03:18:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (HELO qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.62.80) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:17:57 +0000 Received: from omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 03HS1g0050bG4ec583Hw08; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:17:56 +0000 Received: from up.mrs.kithrup.com ([24.4.193.8]) by omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 03Hu1g00Q0BKwT43P3HvAA; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:17:56 +0000 Subject: Re: Unreviewed testsuite patches Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:23:00 -0000 Cc: Rainer Orth , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Janis Johnson , Arnaud Charlet , Richard Guenther Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <44EE7EC2-A9C9-4A76-B47F-7C4B0CE01C3B@comcast.net> To: Gerald Pfeifer X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg01853.txt.bz2 On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > The challenge is that of volunteer projects: If there is someone who > starts reviewing patches, or actively volunteers to become a reviewer, > I feel the SC may be quite open to that. On the other hand, the SC does > not have a magic hat which allows it to produce such volunteers with a > flick of a magic wand. :-) Yes, I've heard others say that as well... > Until and unless that happens, what are the alternatives to relying on > global reviewers and suggesting that maintainer of specific parts of the > compiler (frontends, optimizations, backends,...) should feel free to > make non-intrusive changes as necessary for their work? Well, if there isn't a problem, then no solution is necessary. So, the que= stion is, do we have a problem? I ask, because having a problem is probabl= y a prerequisite to solving it.