From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-80231-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 32575 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2003 06:49:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32568 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2003 06:49:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vitelus.com) (64.81.243.207)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2003 06:49:53 -0000
Received: from aaronl by vitelus.com with local (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian))
	id 19i7DP-0006I1-GK; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:47:07 -0700
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:30:00 -0000
From: Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com>
To: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC
Message-ID: <20030731064707.GA20389@vitelus.com>
References: <1059633859.3637.8.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1059633859.3637.8.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02281.txt.bz2

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 08:44:19AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I'm not sure why they think it is so difficult.  It would seem that if
> the patch is architecture-specific and well-formed (ie. conforming to
> the coding style, etc), it typically just goes in, period.  And patches
> to target-independent code may go through one or two review cycles, but
> again, if the patch looks good, it goes in.  At least, I got the
> impression that patches are seldomly rejected.

Copyright assignments.