Re: GCC review process: how to handle external submissions

[Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>]

[ Three suggestions at the end, which everybody might want to check. ]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> This week, I got three mails on the same subject, two of which read like
> this:
>> I submitted this to gcc-patches in November, resubmitted it in December,
>> opened a bug report in January, wrote to gcc-bugs. I got no replies.
>>
>> I believe that this patch fixes a legitimate, reproducable bug and
>> follows all patch submission guidelines on the gcc website.
>>
>> Please consider applying this patch. I would appreciate a reply in any
>> case.
> and
>> The state of this is totally defunct.
>> I have tried different request strategies for a few years
>> and have concluded that only if I become a gcc insider
>> can I get even the simplest changes made.
>> I don't have the time, energy, or interest in that.

This is mighty unfortunate, and (as a sporadic contributor to other
projects) I can understand the enormous frustration this may cause.

> I think we have a serious problem here. We are not only losing the
> contributions from these people, we are also scaring them away, and I
> don't think this is wise.

We also have another serious problem here: Nobody had anything to respond
to your message for more than two weeks.  Us being a volunteer project,
I can understand all that, but still, we are having a serious problem here.

> Can we at least discuss the reasons for this, and maybe come up with
> suggestions about how we could improve this process? I think it would be
> tremendously helpful if there were someone who
>
> - could be contacted if there is a patch from somebody from outside gcc
> - is willing to help with small problems like missing ChangeLog entries
>   or wrong formatting
> - identifies port/front-end/... maintainer that would be qualified to
>   review the patch
> - will take on some mediator function between patch submitter and
>   reviewer, if necessary
> - most of all: takes care that patches are not silently dropped

Fully agreed; in most cases identifying a suitable maintainer and pinging
him should be sufficient.

Other approaches I have in mind:

A) Patches that have been submitted at least twice without being properly
   dealt with shall submitted to GNATS/Bugzilla, and as part of our
   release process we guarantee to deal with all such patches submitted
   before a specific cut-off date (say, the beginning of phase 3).

B) We need further maintainers. This is something where we have made
   progress, but if you'd like to suggest anybody qualified as maintainer
   for any part of GCC (including "upgrades" of existing maintainers)
   please suggest that to your SC member of choice!

C) We might consider allowing two contributors with experience in some
   area which they do not (yet) maintain officially to approve patches
   together.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry"   pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/