From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31184 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2013 23:47:44 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 31175 invoked by uid 89); 1 Oct 2013 23:47:44 -0000 Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f182.google.com) (209.85.220.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 01 Oct 2013 23:47:44 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f182.google.com Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hf12so34942vcb.41 for ; Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:47:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.116.74 with SMTP id ju10mr25395608vdb.20.1380671261442; Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.63.73 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:47:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <524AE8FF.2010101@redhat.com> References: <5249A23F.8000901@embecosm.com> <524A9173.30301@redhat.com> <524ACD05.2020701@redhat.com> <20131001101941.n710f8j688owg4oo-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <524AE8FF.2010101@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 23:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Getting the ARC port reviewed and accepted From: David Edelsohn To: Andrew Haley Cc: Joern Rennecke , Richard Biener , jeremy.bennett@embecosm.com, David Edelsohn , GCC Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 10/01/2013 03:19 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: >> >> Quoting Richard Biener: >> >>> Good. So what remains is the configure parts, the libgcc parts and >>> the documentation parts. Though for all of them they look ARC >>> specific so maybe the maintainership covers these as well. >>> >>> I suppose this automatism when being assigned the maintainership >>> escaped Joern as well ... ;) >> >> >> I knew that the maintainership in general covers the relevant config >> and testsuite bits as well as the port specific directories, but David >> Edelsohn >> said at my appointment as maintainer: >> >> : The GCC SC has approved acceptance of the port and you as maintainer. >> : I will announce that shortly. Because the patches that you want to >> : include in GCC 4.8 are localized to the port, I think that it still >> : should be possible to merge it into trunk (assuming the RMs agree), >> : but you still need a Global Reviewer to approve it. > > > Ofercrineoutloud, I'm wondering if we've changed from the Knights Of > Free Software to a bunch of clerks obsessed with process for process's > sake. > > Please, there must be a Global Reviewer reading this. This hyperbolic reaction is not helpful and you have enough experience with the GCC community to understand why a technical review is helpful. There clearly are alternate ways of interpreting the request than as some bureaucratic torture test. There are legal or other reasons that GCC might not want to accept an offered patch (GCC SC approval) and there have been severe technical problems with some proposed new ports or the port may touch common areas of the compiler (GCC global reviewer). If some GCC Global Reviewer is confident in Joern's ability, which I don't doubt, he can approve it based on that. 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. GCC is a community not a dictatorship. - David