From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26874 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2011 22:54:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 26861 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jan 2011 22:54:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay01.pair.com (HELO relay01.pair.com) (209.68.5.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:54:40 +0000 Received: (qmail 14731 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2011 22:54:33 -0000 Received: from 2.204.198.27 (HELO ip-2-204-198-27.web.vodafone.de) (2.204.198.27) by relay01.pair.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2011 22:54:33 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 2.204.198.27 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:17:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Mike Stump cc: Rainer Orth , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Janis Johnson , Arnaud Charlet , Richard Guenther Subject: Re: Unreviewed testsuite patches In-Reply-To: <44EE7EC2-A9C9-4A76-B47F-7C4B0CE01C3B@comcast.net> Message-ID: References: <44EE7EC2-A9C9-4A76-B47F-7C4B0CE01C3B@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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/msg01826.txt.bz2 On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Mike Stump wrote: > My take, once the technical side (non-dejagnu) is reviewed and approved, > the work should just go in. I'd look to the SC to elaborate on what the > right approach is. Sitting around for a global person for testsuite > fixes and additions, is, well, silly. 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. :-) 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? Gerald (speaking for myself, not the SC)