From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
To: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: Joern Rennecke <joern.rennecke@embecosm.com>,
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
jeremy.bennett@embecosm.com,
David Edelsohn <edelsohn@gnu.org>,
GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Getting the ARC port reviewed and accepted
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:49:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <524C2468.201@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGWvnyn_YLzSZP=egK23xnkXZTRfWQP3fB9PvNZUXviyTJ0cUw@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/02/2013 01:46 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Haley<aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2013 12:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> It is unfortunate that global reviewers are so busy that they cannot
>>> review the few, infrequent new port submissions. But I find it very
>>> distasteful for someone to hyperventilate because other, busy people
>>> don't do something that appears obvious.
>>
>> I'm sure you do, but I find it far more distasteful to have a willing
>> volunteer blocked for so long under such circumstances. This is not
>> the way that we should be doing things.
>
> Productive, helpful suggestions on how to improve the situation are welcome.
Clearly, insisting that only one of the few global maintainers can
review the port is a problem. Global maintainers don't scale. There
is no reason why the maintainer of another port can't review this
port. It doesn't necessarily need an global maintainer.
While a technical review of the port would undoubtedly be helpful, it
does not make any sense to block the ARC port until it receives one:
this is an unbounded wait.
If there aren't any middle-end changes, the consequence of an ARC port
that's not good is at worst an ARC port in GCC that is not good. Even
if there are middle-end changes, these can be reviewed separately.
The downside of continuing to block this submission for another year
is obvious, and is, I submit, worse than the downside of accepting a
port that still needs some work.
Andrew.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-02 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-30 16:09 Jeremy Bennett
2013-10-01 8:11 ` Richard Biener
2013-10-01 9:10 ` Andrew Haley
2013-10-01 10:32 ` Richard Biener
2013-10-01 13:24 ` Andrew Haley
2013-10-01 13:30 ` Richard Biener
2013-10-01 14:19 ` Joern Rennecke
2013-10-01 15:23 ` Andrew Haley
2013-10-01 15:29 ` Jeff Law
2013-10-01 23:47 ` David Edelsohn
2013-10-02 8:32 ` Andrew Haley
2013-10-02 12:46 ` David Edelsohn
2013-10-02 13:49 ` Andrew Haley [this message]
2013-10-02 13:59 ` Richard Biener
2013-10-02 15:43 ` David Malcolm
2013-10-03 12:24 ` Richard Earnshaw
2013-10-03 7:46 ` Jeremy Bennett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=524C2468.201@redhat.com \
--to=aph@redhat.com \
--cc=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=edelsohn@gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeremy.bennett@embecosm.com \
--cc=joern.rennecke@embecosm.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).