rules for svn commit-ing a [gengtype] patch?

[Basile Starynkevitch <basile at starynkevitch dot net>]

Hello All,

I am a bit confused about the (GCC social) rules to commit a patch to
the GCC trunk svn, in particular after having read
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00419.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00486.html and other
messages in that thread. I also am not sure to understand what does the
end of stage 1 means.

I am just a plain write after approval maintainer, that is at the
bottom of GCC social meritocracy.

Until now, I thought that to be autorized to svn commit a patch to GCC
trunk, I need to get an ok email (or maybe ok with such and such
changes) on the gcc-patches@ list by a person listed as reviewer in the
MAINTAINERS file. Apparently, there might be other means of getting an
Ok, but I believe they need IRC (which I don't have access to from
office) or face to face interaction (which I believe happens frequently
in big GCC businesses like Adacore, CodeSourcery, Google) from a
reviewer working in the same office (or place) as the svn commit-er.

As you probably know, I worked hard with Jeremie Salvucci to improve
gengtype for plugins (by persisting its state), and we sent several
iterations of patches, e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00227.html &
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01719.html and all patches
referenced there.

Our patches got several comments from Laurynas Biveinis, and we
(Jeremie & me Basile) reacted to each to our best. But Laurynas is
*not* listed as a reviewer, so he cannot (formally) Ok any patches.

And our patches are specific to gengtype. In particular

0. gengtype is a source code generator, generating code from GTY
annotation, to help garbage collection & precompiled headers. Its only
relation to (shipped) GCC behavior or even binary is indirect (thru the
gengtype generated gt*.[ch] files).

1. gengtype don't interest much reviewers; I know no gengtype reviewer,
so the only reviewer able to Ok our patches should be a global
reviewer. They are a very rare resource.

2. our patches don't change a bit in the gengtype generated files. My
feeling is that this property would make our patches even acceptable in
stage 2, but they add more functionality to gengtype so I would guess
that stage 1 would be mandatory to many (even if, as I said, our
patches don't change the behavior of the GCC compiler).

3. The last iteration of our patches is only cosmetic (mostly
indentation related), so I need to get a chunk svn commit-ed before
sending to gcc-patches@ the next chunk.

Even by pinging them, our patches got no much interest so far (except
some people, like Paolo Bonzini, wanting them but not able to OK them,
or like Laurynas reviewing them but not able to OK them).

Can we svn commit a patch after having compiled with a comment (like
those of Laurynas) without an Ok from a reviewer? (I believe not, but I
am thinking that some patches went into trunk without an ok on
gcc-patches@).

Should we try to find a reviewer interested in gengtype? How can I do
that?

Do you have any constructive suggestions.

I am even arriving one day earlier at GCC summit (ie on Saturday
evening, so I am available on Sunday in Ottawa) to meet any potential
global reviewer able to OK our patches.

What can I do more?

Given the delay of october 27th, & since I have to get one chunk
accepted into trunk before sending the next one in its final form, I am
very pessimistic about the chances of our patches going into 4.6.

Constructive suggestions, or offer to meet me in Ottawa on Sunday
october 24th by a global reviewer, are welcome.

Maybe there is something about svn commit (social) rules I did not
understand?

Or should I ping our patches more often?

Regards.
-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***