[Bug c++/29365] Unnecessary anonymous namespace warnings

["manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Comment #29 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-06 11:23 -------
(In reply to comment #28)
> (In reply to comment #27)
> 
> > It is not like GCC is a closed source program either,
> > you can try to make a fix for the issue too.
> 
> Andrew, real world is not so simple ;)
[snip]
> c.a. 3 months and no effects for tested trivial patch.
> no accecpt, no reject, no commit, no fun.
> in current situation i feel no reason to working
> on another patch while the GCC-Team redirect external
> patches to /dev/null.

It is true that patches get lost sometimes. But that is true for everybody, not
only for external patches.  If you check
http://www.dberlin.org/patches/patches/list, there are patches pending since
2006 from top maintainers such as Andrew Pinski. I guess they forgot about them
or just don't have time to keep pinging them. (That is why the patch tracker is
such a great idea, I may decide to take his patch, update it and ping it
myself).

> moreover, gcc lists are full of patch-ping^N-noeffects.
> i think people are not motivated to cooperate with GCC-Team.

That may be true. (I think it is to some extent). But there are also lots of
patches that get 5 pings and then get reviewed and committed. Sending a ping
for a patch takes less than 1 second (at least with gmail). Sometimes you need
to ping individual maintainers (CC them) one by one until someone replies (in
your case, perhaps diagnostics maintainer and C++ front-end ones) but without
being annoying because that will put reviewers off.

Unfortunately, this penalises the sporadic contributor that wants to commit a
patch before sending another. You don't need to wait. If you have 12 patches
waiting approval, ping all of them. (It will make more noise than a lonely ping
from time to time).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29365