This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Zamyatin, Igor" <igor dot zamyatin at intel dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:00:19 +0200
- Subject: Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87r3z33g2q dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net> <54205555 dot 5040506 at redhat dot com> <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969B792F6 at IRSMSX101 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com> <871tqug0ft dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +0000, "Zamyatin, Igor" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Jeff Law wrote:
> > > The original plan was for Balaji to take on this role; however, his assignment
> > > within Intel has changed and thus he's not going to have time to work on
> > > Cilk+ anymore.
> > >
> > > Igor Zamyatin has been doing a fair amount of Cilk+ maintenance/bugfixing
> > > and it might make sense for him to own it in the long term if he's interested.
> > That's right.
> > Can I add 2 records (cilk plus and libcilkrts) to Various Maintainers section?
> I understand Jeff's email as a pre-approval of such a patch.
I think only SC can appoint maintainers, and while Jeff is in the SC,
my reading of that mail wasn't that it was the SC that has acked that, but
rather a question if Igor is willing to take that role, which then would
need to be acked by SC.