From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27409 invoked by alias); 10 May 2003 14:49:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27370 invoked from network); 10 May 2003 14:49:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 May 2003 14:49:23 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA22935; Sat, 10 May 03 10:54:05 EDT Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 14:49:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10305101454.AA22935@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl Subject: Re: Add new target: vxworks for xscale Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01000.txt.bz2 I don't like this approach. As a Fortran maintainer, I could surely be presented with patches thought up or adopted by a global write maintainer. That doesn't mean I'd just forgo my right to review them ... No, of course not. And indeed your comments on such a patch should be given great weight, as Zack's was in my case. But that doesn't mean you (or Zack) would have the right to immediately demand they be reverted without further discussion. Your (and Zack's) goal should be to convince the person who applied the patches that they were wrong and you were right. That should normally not be hard (and wasn't in this case, once the discussion occurred). Just applying patches written by someone else without review is utterly wrong, in my not so humble opinion. That's not what happened in this case. I not only "reviewed" it, but made significant changes. I spent a few hours on this patch, in fact, and a changed a number of things I didn't like. Zack had more things he didn't like, but before I was willing to automatically defer to his opinion, I wanted to give the original author a chance to address them. Perhaps there were some things that made this method correct and Zack wrong. Perhaps not. But what's wrong with trying to find out?