Re: MAINTAINERS policy question

[Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com>]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:13:44PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>> Mark Mitchell writes:
> 
> Mark> I would extend it to documentation that affects X, config.foo files
> Mark> that affect X, and so forth...
> 
> 	What about collect2.c?  What about parts of libstdc++?  What about
> libtool?  What about config.gcc?  There is no clear definition of "so
> forth".  We only have obscured the ambiguity which remains.

Well, when Mark switched libstdc++-v3 to be the official C++ library,
he spoke to this point:

    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-11/msg00522.html

Look about seven paragraphs down, the one with "Port maintainers w/o global
write access," etc.

It's been libstdc++'s informal policy to treat those config pieces,
and the relevent chunks of configure.{host,target}, as part of a port,
and therefore under a port maintainer's control.  Most of the maintainers
run patches past Benjamin anyhow as an extra sanity check, which is good.


Phil

-- 
Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
                                     - anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC