Re: The future of gfortran maintenance.

[Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:17:07AM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> 
> > David Edelsohn brought to my attention on IRC that some gfortran
> > code reviewers/approvers have not been officially anointed by the SC.
> > The list of people, who have been performing this task, is
> >     Paul Brook     Steven Bosscher
> >     Toon Moene     Tobias Schlueter
> >     Bud Davis      Janne Blomqvist
> >     Steve Kargl    Thomas Koenig
> >     Paul Thomas    Francois-Xavier Coudert
> 
> > Can you take this list to the SC for the super secret handshake?
> 
> After some discussion on the SC mailing list, mainly concerning
> the potential problem of having "too many maintainers", I am
> glad to say that all those above, and in addition:
> 
> 	Jerry DeLisle	and	Erik Edelmann
> 
> can move their listing in the MAINTAINERS file from "write after
> approval" to "fortran 95 maintainer", i.e., on a line after and
> equivalent to:
> 
> fortran 95		Toon Moene		toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl
> 
> Thanks to you all !
> 

Thanks for representing the Fortran gang to the SC.  I'll note
that (for at least me) I was seeking only a clarification on
who could review and approve patches.  Whereas, doesn't maintainer
status confer additional power such as applying patches without 
review?  For example, I would trust an OK from jerryd on a patch
to libgfortran's IO subsystem over an OK from kargl.  OTOH, if
jerryd develops a patch to the IO subsystem, I would expect that
he posts the patch for review.  Fortunately, the Fortran gang 
appears to a small group that works well together and I don't
anticipate any changes in the way we work towards improving gfortran.

-- 
Steve