From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4703 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2005 20:05:57 -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 4527 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2005 20:05:40 -0000 Received: from dumbledore.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:05:40 +0000 Received: (qmail 17487 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2005 20:05:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.253.176.38?) (mitchell@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 Aug 2005 20:05:38 -0000 Message-ID: <42F2750A.808@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:05:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gcc mailing list CC: Giovanni Bajo Subject: Management of new ports Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 Giovanni -- On July 12th, you posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00483.html asking about handing of new ports. The SC has discussed the issue, at your request. Fundamentally, the SC feels that this issue is outside its purview as a "board of directors" for GCC; this is an issue for the technical management of GCC (i.e., maintainers) to decide. Other than that conclusion, the rest of this email is just my summary and opinion, not an official SC statement. Where I say "we" I'm talking about my perception of an informal consensus of people that participated in the discussion, not an official dictate. In general, we think that wall new ports with active maintainership sould be accepted, if the ports meet our technical criteria. However, we also recognize that reviewing new ports is hard, and time-consuming, and that reviewers are volunteers, and so that may not happen very quickly. We are not in favor of "auto approval". You mentioned that you submitted a patch to update the technical requirements for ports to say that cc0 ports would not be accepted, etc. Personally, I think that's entirely appropriate. The SC doesn't want to be involved in making such a list, or approving it; that should be done by consensus of the maintainers. But, this conclusion should remove the objection that "there is no official statement on this". You should probably also mark the appropriate macros, etc., in the internals document as deprecated. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC mark@codesourcery.com (916) 791-8304