Re: RFC - GCC Architectural Goals

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>]

On 12/07/11 03:52, ééä wrote:
> Hi Diego,
>
> > For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
> > online.  The document is at
> > https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9pciOBziMHTnK4
>
>    I am looking at "Developer tools - Patch submission and review". I have been
> working on QEMU for a while and sent a few trivial patches to QEMU. QEMU has
> volunteers for reviewing patches considered to be *trivial* and has a separate
> mailing list for trivial patches. This kind of patches includes typo fixes,
> document improvement and simple code improvement. I think this approach can
> encourage more people to involve in helping GCC better. What do you think?

We have a rule for "obviously correct" patches that do not even need 
review.  Typo, grammar and other stylistic patches fall under that category.

However, it is true that some patches are not in that category.  In 
general, we prefer to keep patch traffic in a single place 
(gcc-patches@), but we use message tagging extensively.  How about 
'[trivial]'?

Now, this does not solve the review issue.  We currently have several 
very active reviewers, but never enough.  We do not have a good handle 
on how many patches go unreviewed and for how long (no patch tracking). 
 One could measure the number of patch-pings vs patch-submissions, I guess.


Diego.