From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-162463-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17537 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2010 21:22:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 17529 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2010 21:22:34 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from vsmtp14.tin.it (HELO vsmtp14.tin.it) (212.216.176.118)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:22:31 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (79.40.56.169) by vsmtp14.tin.it (8.5.113)        id 4BCE303704E18F9D; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 23:21:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4C0D62F5.908@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:40:00 -0000
From: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 SUSE/3.0.4-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
CC: NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com>,  Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Patch pinging
References: <AANLkTimRPovANTXmj2WHsTjpWyZRjq05M0igERMkMIMY@mail.gmail.com>	<201006071901.03000.ebotcazou@adacore.com>	<AANLkTikdIHWbzuI5gZODPsL9TTsj0TsSdaT8To3yc6d6@mail.gmail.com>	<4C0D4A26.6080703@oracle.com>	<mcrwrua37qr.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com>	<4C0D5792.8090005@oracle.com> <mcrk4qa35nc.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <mcrk4qa35nc.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com>
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: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
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
X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2

On 06/07/2010 11:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Can you expand? What kinds of process changes would be reasonable to
> make?
>   
Following the terminology "irregular contributor", per Jeff message, I
would not consider unreasonable for irregular contributions to use more
extensively and consistently the patch-queue, which we have been using
for some time. In that way all the patches would be perfectly tracked,
as far as I can see. The last days I have been traveling, thus sorry if
I missed parts of the discussion, but I don't understand why the
patch-queue mechanism is not being seriously considered...

Paolo.