Re: (ti)c4x maintainer

["Svein E. Seldal" <Svein dot Seldal at solidas dot com>]

Jim Wilson wrote:

> 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.
I agree. My intentions are *NOT* to squeese, discourage, embarass 
anyone! My focus is solely on the gcc product, not on the persons behind 
it. I used the term "unacceptable" in respect of inhibiting the further 
development of this target.

> 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.

I reason I proposed co-maintainership was that I predict that there may 
come several more such small bugfixes/adjustments to tic4x-gcc for 
fitting it to bintuils. To take the load of the persons approving the 
patches (which in this case isn't the maintainer), I thought that I 
could take the "noble" task of doing it myself; helping out with what I 
can; fix these bugs!

> 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.
Thank you. I did not mean for this to start a war! I was having a 
problem and wanted to discuss solution.

Thanks,
Svein