This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Reduce Dwarf Debug Size


Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Perhaps a middle ground between what we have now, and "trust but verify",
would be to have a "without objection" rule.  I.e.  certain people are
authorized to post patches and if no one objects within say two weeks,
then they could then check it in.  I think that would help clear up the
backlog while still allowing people to comment *before* the patch goes in.

I think it would be fair to directly CC: relevant maintainers in these
cases so they don't miss the patch by accident.

This is not too far off what the new "non-algorithmic maintainer" class is designed for, it seems to me. It broadens the class of people who can check in unreviewed patches (and review patches) without giving them full algorithmic-maintainer status. My understanding is that, although so far there are only three non-algorithmic maintainers, the intent was that there would be a fair number of them.


My view might be affected somewhat by the fact that the "without objection" rule you describe is pretty close to how many of the GFortran maintainers seem to work, in my experience -- they usually post patches for discussion before committing them, and then check them in when they seem to have been discussed a reasonable amount. That seems to work quite well.

- Brooks


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]