This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to test
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, David Edelsohn <edelsohn at gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 13:10:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to test
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 4 August 2016 at 21:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> d) Delegate hierarchically. Module owners should seek and delegate to people
> with svn-write powers and ask for reviews in exchange of reviews.
> Advantages: No loss in quality, distribute work, creates an economy of
> Disadvantages: More work required from module owners to keep track of
> patches, reviews and possible reviewers. Possibly offset by not having to do
> in-depth reviews themselves.
We don't need maintainers to delegate, people without approval rights
are perfectly welcome to do reviews. I certainly welcome that and wish
it happened a lot more.
If something in my review queue gets comments from someone else that
helps the reviewer (unless the commenter is just totally wrong or
talking rubbish, which happens very rarely) and it helps me. When I
come to do the review I know it's already been looked at by someone
else and passed a basic sanity check, and certain parts of the patch
might be brought to my attention by the other person's comments. Or if
the other commenter points out fatal flaws in the patch then it saves
me spending any time on it, and the patch author can try to address
the problems sooner.
The problem is that non-approvers *aren't* doing reviews today. We
should encourage that. Maybe bribing them with reviews in exchange for
reviews might work, but I'd like people to do reviews even if they
don't have anything of their own awaiting review. And I'd like someone
to do ten reviews, even if they only have one thing of their own
We don't need to change the final approval step being from a
maintainer to be able to spread the workload.