From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Cc: Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS policy question
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 08:35:00 -0000
Message-id: <63EA27AC-AAB8-11D5-8396-0030657B5340@cgsoftware.com>
References: <10109161345.AA05760@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00626.html

On Sunday, September 16, 2001, at 09:45 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:

>> I'd say it means config/X/*, plus the entries for X in config.gcc, plus
>> documentation for X (options in invoke.texi, attributes in extend.texi,
>> specific issues in install.texi, ...), plus testcases for any feature 
>> or
>> bug specific to X (probably plus configuration for X in libstdc++-v3 /
>> libffi / ...).
>
>     Is there consensus on this policy?
>
> That's how I always interpreted it.
Just to present a differing viewpoint (though i'm not the one who 
emailed Bernd), i've always interpreted it to be the way that surprised 
Bernd.
After all, anyone with enough experience to be maintaining a port, it's 
likely they know enough to be able to make changes to other parts of the 
compiler that affect their platform.
But I could see how the viewpoint you guys have is perfectly reasonable.
Maybe we should write down whatever the consensus is?