This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Make Francois-Xavier Coudert, Thomas Koenig and Paul Thomas Reviewers?
- From: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>
- To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org,Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>,Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>,Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>,Bud Davis <bdavis at gfortran dot org>,François-Xavier Coud ert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>,Thomas Koenig <Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de>
- Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:11:52 +0200
- Subject: Re: Make Francois-Xavier Coudert, Thomas Koenig and Paul Thomas Reviewers?
- References: <42F25D6E.3020401@wanadoo.fr> <200508081528.50572.paul@codesourcery.com>
Paul,
Sorry about the delay in replying - yesterday, we had a huge fire in the
forest behind our house, which resulted in our being evacuated
overnight. There is still firefighting going on and I have just had to
give the firemen access across our land to connect to our irrigation
water supply.
I had an exchange with Steven about this. He voiced the opinion that
the number of reviewers would become excessive and that this would
reduce the confidence that other gcc maintainers have in gfortran; or in
the control of the reviewing process. I can see what he means but
cannot see another way around progressing the work on gfortran when its
reviewers are so pressed for time. We should strive, therefore, to make
sure that the reviewing is completely open. In the course of our
discussion, Steven opened my eyes to the existence of the patch queue.
I honestly had no idea of its existence. We must also make sure that it
is used by all the contributors and the reviewers.
Paul Brook wrote:
I propose that Francois-Xavier Coudert, Thomas Koenig (if he is willing
- I have not discussed it with him) and I be made reviewers. We are all
sensible enough that we can defer on contributions that are outside our
experience or competence. In addition, since the reviewing process is
entirely open, there is really little prospect of disaster.
Ok. Please update the webpages/docs to reflect this.
Francois-Xavier; the pompier-sapeurs are back again - could you take
care of this, please?
Perhaps, it
would be a good idea, whilst we still have provisional licences, that 24
hours elapse before our giving a green light on the list and the
contributor committing, so that those with more experience can keep an
eye on what we are doing?
I don't think there's any need to formalise this. If you think this is
appropriate, just say so in your review mail. As always if you're unsure
about something, say so and either don't approve the patch, or make approval
conditional on someone else agreeing that the change is OK.
OK
Patch approvals should be driven by what you feel confident reviewing, not how
important the bugfix/feature it.
Agreed.
Paul T