Re: (ti)c4x maintainer

[Jim Wilson <wilson at redhat dot com>]

Please remember that most gcc work is performed by volunteers.  Taking actions
which discourage people from volunteering are not in our best interest.  We
should try to avoid being confrontational when it isn't necesasry.  If you
want to thank Michael Hayes for his fine work and then replace him as
maintainer, then that would be perfectly reasonable.  If you want to try to
publicly embarass him to force him to do something, then I can't agree with
that.

Please also remember that we have mechanisms for dealing with unreviewed
patches.  All you have to do is send mail to gcc-patches pointing out that
it hasn't been reviewed in a timely manner.  Lots of people do this.
If someone has been sending private mail to Michael Hayes and not getting
an answer, then I think our proper response should be to tell them to send
mail to the list instead.

Incidentally, your description of events here are not entirely correct.
See for instance:
        http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-10/msg00747.html
Michael Hayes already reviewed and approved the patch 14 days after it was
submitted, but never checked it in.  Note also that this approval came in
mid-October, around the time that Svein Seldal says he stopped responding to
email.  Perhaps he was unable to check in the patch because he was on
vacation, or got sick, or something else happened.  Or perhaps he just forgot.
He wouldn't be the first person to make that mistake.

What we can do is have someone else look at the original patch, now that we
know it fell through the cracks.

Incidentally, I am leaving on vacation in a few hours, so I won't be able to
continue the conversion until next week, or help with the patch until next
week.

Jim