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: RFC - GCC Architectural Goals

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
To: ééä <chenwj at iis dot sinica dot edu dot tw>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:11:40 -0500
Subject: Re: RFC - GCC Architectural Goals
References: <CAD_=9DQx+_xjV_t8PAJ_4PCRyh-HO9B8zvS8wLpOrQKbNcNneQ@mail.gmail.com> <20111207085204.GA46117@cs.nctu.edu.tw> <4EDF8E79.4090504@google.com> <20111208032045.GA53677@cs.nctu.edu.tw>

On 12/07/11 22:20, ééä wrote:

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]'?


   If reviwer can pick up trivial patches easily by this way, I have no
objection. :)

In general, this is how we operate. So, all I can say here is "send your patches". We do have a set of very active reviewers, but I do not think we have good metrics on patch review timeliness.

Diego.

References:
- RFC - GCC Architectural Goals
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: RFC - GCC Architectural Goals
  - From: ééä
- Re: RFC - GCC Architectural Goals
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: RFC - GCC Architectural Goals
  - From: ééä

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