From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9270 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2009 19:29:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 9262 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2009 19:29:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:29:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n59JTeeU017581; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:29:40 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n59JTdvL024441; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:29:39 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (vpn-13-1.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n59JTbOK031054; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:29:38 -0400 Message-ID: <4A2EB821.8050806@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081009) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Basile STARYNKEVITCH CC: GCC Mailing List Subject: Re: increasing the number of GCC reviewers References: <4A2E8528.8090604@starynkevitch.net> <4A2E91B2.7040703@redhat.com> <4A2E9922.1090208@starynkevitch.net> <4A2E9C70.7090703@redhat.com> <4A2EA57E.5090703@starynkevitch.net> <4A2EAD08.1080207@redhat.com> <4A2EB45D.1070005@starynkevitch.net> In-Reply-To: <4A2EB45D.1070005@starynkevitch.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: >> >> This is going to sound rude, but if you don't know what reload is >> you're not able to talk about gcc maintenance. > > Reload is probably in the register allocator, which indeed is in the > backend part I know nothing about (and I don't care much). OK, that's pretty close. > Your opinion is not rude, but I still believe one don"t need to > understand all of the GCC internals to talk about the review process. No, they don't. But they need to have some kind of a clue about how it works, and what the pieces are. > I even disagree on your opinion. I believe I might even become in a few > years some kind of gcc/ggc*.[ch] secondary reviewer. Sure, I don't see why not. It'll take work, but it's perfectly possible. > This is precisely my point. It should be perfectly acceptable that some > people be authorized to approve some few patches without understanding > the whole of GCC, and even without knowing all of it. GCC isn't really like that. Changes in one part can affect things much later on, and you really have to know why. That doesn't mean you have to understand all of the compiler, but you need to have a lot of knowledge. > Now, I understand you or others can disagree with my opinion. You may > think that most reviewers should know most of GCC (I disagree with that). No-one knows most of GCC. At least, I very much doubt it. Rather than saying "the set of reviewers should significantly grow", let me challenge you. Suggest someone who should be added to that set. Andrew.