This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: (ti)c4x maintainer
- From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- To: Jim Wilson <wilson at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Svein E. Seldal" <Svein dot Seldal at solidas dot com>, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:13:33 -0500
- Subject: Re: (ti)c4x maintainer
>>>>> Jim Wilson writes:
Jim> It isn't ideal, but it is acceptable. After all, a GCC maintainer is a
Jim> volunteer, and there is no requirement that they perform any particular task.
Jim> If a volunteer isn't serving our needs, then we can consider adding a
Jim> co-maintainer or asking for a resignation. But there shouldn't be any need
Jim> to take action against someone just because mail wasn't answered for a month.
A GCC maintainer is a volunteer, but also has some additional
authority and with that authority comes responsibility. If the volunteer
does not want the responsibility, they should not request the privileges.
Also, this particular case is not mail unanswered for a month, it
is a patch which have not been addressed for months and should have gone
into GCC 3.2.1 as well.
Jim> By the way, these kinds of problems are why it is a good idea to send patches
Jim> to the list instead of to a specific maintainer. There are a number of people
Jim> who can approve c4x patches. So there is no need for c4x development to stop
Jim> just because the c4x maintainer is at the moment not answering mail.
The patch was sent to the gcc-patches mailinglist:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-09/msg01719.html
David