This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PING^2: resubmitted IRA improvement patches
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: vmakarov at redhat dot com
- Cc: dje dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com
- Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:55:01 EDT
- Subject: Re: PING^2: resubmitted IRA improvement patches
- References: <4CAB3BFB.6070505@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTimF2irGsm+_vzy0+GigrSop2O-exiPAnO1e1H2W@mail.gmail.com> <4CAC82F8.2060909@redhat.com>
> I don't think that only reviewer approach is right thing. What if two
> reviewers do not agree on a third party patch. I saw recently a nasty
> conflict on this base on GCC mailing list (I was myself in the same
> situation recently in much less severe form). What if a patch creator
> (and also a reviewer in the patch code area too) does not agree with his
> patch review and he believes he knows importance of the patch better.
As Mark said, this is quite rare. Usually, if a second reviewer disagrees
with a patch, it's because he saw something that the first reviewer missed
and the first reviewer normally responds with something like "oh yeah,
that's right".
The only times I've seen actual disagreements between reviewers that can't
be resolved quickly by consensus is when the disagreement is about a
POLICY, not a technical, matter. And in that case, the SC is the
appropriate arbiter.