From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17147 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2009 14:05:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 17007 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2009 14:05:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f211.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f211.google.com) (209.85.218.211) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:05:35 +0000 Received: by bwz3 with SMTP id 3so1248505bwz.16 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:05:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.153.202 with SMTP id l10mr1162684bkw.92.1259330732843; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:05:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 35sm2072432fkt.40.2009.11.27.06.05.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:05:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B0FE064.10204@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:05:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Matz CC: Dave Korn , Richard Earnshaw , Richard Guenther , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, hongjiu.lu@intel.com Subject: Re: doh? References: <1259318103.9961.17.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <4B0FDAA2.1030005@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00774.txt.bz2 Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Dave Korn wrote: > >>> PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS. >> However I don't think it's going to happen, > > Yes, it's probably not going to happen; neither the requested revert. > But now I at least know a strategy how to sneak in controversial patches. No, that is a false inference. Nothing about the way we've decided to handle this situation sets a precedent that we would be obliged to follow in any future instance and I think there's a fairly strong consensus that this patch wasn't suitable for the free-for-all rule owing to its scale. >> given that it's been a couple of days now and a whole load of commits >> have gone in on top. If I for one second thought that it had been going >> to happen, I would have objected. Very loudly. > > I also complained loudly, I think. Nobody is interested. Everyone agrees that it was a bad idea for this patch to go in the way it did, the only point on which there is any difference of opinion is what we should do about it, and there, yes; you and Paolo are pretty much the only people who feel that it should have been backed out, where I and others feel that it's not worth the second helping of pain that doing so would cause and that we should proceed not by doing anything in this particular case but by trying to make sure it doesn't happen again in the future. cheers, DaveK