From: David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com>
To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds@redhat.com>
Cc: Jim Wilson <wilson@cygnus.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Loop unroll fixes
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:47:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200109141847.OAA27242@makai.watson.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109141839360.29367-100000@host140.cambridge.redhat.com>
If the GCC developers with the experience and privileges to review
patches don't have enough time to review all of the patches, then we
explicitly should tell the GCC developer community that. Implying that
GCC development can handle the volume of patches, but letting most patches
fall through the cracks helps no one. We need to attract more GCC
developers to whom responsibility can be spread, not discourage the very
developers who could become those maintainers and reviewers.
We also have to accept that fixing the problem will require
modifications to GCC development policy in order to balance responsiveness
to developers with stability of the compiler. We already have started to
address that with the new rules for checking in and reverting patches.
David
P.S. I am sorry that my original message upset some people, but I
think it is good if it can lead to this type of open discussion about the
problems in GCC development and how to improve the situation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-14 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-09-13 16:35 Zoltan Hidvegi
2001-09-13 18:58 ` David Edelsohn
2001-09-13 23:50 ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-14 6:55 ` Daniel Berlin
2001-09-14 12:15 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-09-14 16:45 ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-14 20:11 ` David Edelsohn
2001-09-14 22:23 ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-15 2:42 ` Bernd Schmidt
2001-09-14 21:16 ` Daniel Berlin
2001-09-14 9:41 ` David Edelsohn
2001-09-14 10:46 ` Bernd Schmidt
2001-09-14 11:47 ` David Edelsohn [this message]
2001-09-14 17:54 ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-14 18:35 ` David Edelsohn
2001-09-14 19:56 ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-15 2:56 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-10-04 6:46 ` Franz Sirl
2001-10-04 7:40 ` Mark Mitchell
2001-10-04 20:46 ` Jim Wilson
2001-10-04 20:51 ` Mark Mitchell
2001-10-04 23:10 ` Zoltan Hidvegi
2001-10-10 0:05 ` Mark Mitchell
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109141957550.29416-100000@host140.cambridge.redhat.com>
2001-09-14 14:36 ` David Edelsohn
[not found] <200109142021.QAA26236@makai.watson.ibm.com>
2001-09-15 8:57 ` Bernd Schmidt
2001-09-17 13:16 ` Richard Henderson
2001-09-17 14:24 ` Joe Buck
2001-09-17 15:11 ` Richard Henderson
2001-09-17 17:22 ` Mark Mitchell
2001-09-18 2:19 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-09-18 4:16 Richard Kenner
2001-09-18 10:47 Benjamin Kosnik
2001-09-18 11:54 mike stump
2001-09-18 12:34 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-09-19 11:28 ` Joe Buck
2001-09-24 9:31 ` law
2001-09-18 17:36 Richard Kenner
2001-10-10 1:12 Wolfgang Bangerth
2001-10-10 1:16 ` Mark Mitchell
2001-10-10 5:14 ` Franz Sirl
2001-10-10 11:08 ` Mark Mitchell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200109141847.OAA27242@makai.watson.ibm.com \
--to=dje@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=bernds@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=wilson@cygnus.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).