From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24232 invoked by alias); 20 May 2003 01:16:23 -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 24224 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 01:16:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 May 2003 01:16:23 -0000 Received: from doctormoo (syr-24-24-17-21.twcny.rr.com [24.24.17.21]) by ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4K1GLpn015422; Mon, 19 May 2003 21:16:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from neroden by doctormoo with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19Hvji-0000AC-00; Mon, 19 May 2003 21:16:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 01:24:00 -0000 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, stl@caltech.edu Subject: Re: MinGW (Was Re: PROPOSAL: Variation on an Alternate policy for obsoleting targets) Message-ID: <20030520011613.GA629@doctormoo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Nathanael Nerode X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01824.txt.bz2 Stephan T. Lavavej said: >The message here is interesting: >http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=2280276&forum_id=5119 > >[Danny R. Smith] >> The idea is to get all the ming and cygwin local changes into >> mainstream FSF CVS, so that there is no need for a branch. >> We are getting there. >> Mingw Java developers have been particularly active and the ReactOs >> people have also added a fair chunk. > >>> I see these GCC .diff files for every MinGW GCC release. >>> Where are they coming from? >>> On a maintainer's hard drive, perhaps? =) > >> Yes, mine, for now. >> But that is not satisfactory from my point of view either. > >>> What specifically keeps these patches from being committed? > >> Time. Also, many heavy gcc developers have more importnat things to >> review than patches for an unsupported platform like mingw. >> Cygwin, at least, is considered a secondary platform. Patches not getting reviewed in a reasonable amount of time is a known problem, and we're all working on it. :-/ If the patches aren't submitted to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, we can't do anything, though. If they are submitted and get no review in about two weeks, the submitter should send a message titled 'unreviewed patch'... that usually gets people's attention. There are two types of changes: * MinGW-specific support changes, which don't affect anyone not using MinGW. For these, we'd probably accept the word of the MinGW developers to a certain extent, since they're the experts. I don't see any reason why these wouldn't go in quickly, except really sloppy coding, use of deprecated or obsolete constructs, or lack of documentation. * Changes which may affect builds for other platforms as well. These have to be reviewed quite carefully, of course, but are very welcome especially if they're bug fixes. :-) --Nathanael