This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: PR 54075 Restore 4.6 growth factor

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:08:24 +0200
Subject: Re: PR 54075 Restore 4.6 growth factor
References: <50145054.2060102@gmail.com> <CAH6eHdSFfjoCySVCqShSHS=8GMfsAEJOsL3J0VnsPGZ=jFC0vg@mail.gmail.com> <50156F9D.4050701@gmail.com> <CAH6eHdQSY3ija_0r3+rx1-rTCgs-ZWc3J20jxUp6hoxohOabpw@mail.gmail.com>

On 07/29/2012 07:38 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

Yes please. The point is to allow people to review and comment before the patch is applied, and some people only subscribe to gcc-patches not libstdc++.

I don't have a strong opinion, but I must say that I don't understand why those people don't subscribe to libstdc++: since we *do* have a separate mailing list, IMO if they are interested they should. On the other hand, if they *really* don't care (eg, some people don't even like C++ in general ;) sending all the traffic to gcc-patches too may seem a mild form of spamming. But, as I said, I don't have a strong opinion, and personally I'm not terribly consistent ;)

Paolo.

References:
- PR 54075 Restore 4.6 growth factor
  - From: François Dumont
- Re: PR 54075 Restore 4.6 growth factor
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: PR 54075 Restore 4.6 growth factor
  - From: François Dumont
- Re: PR 54075 Restore 4.6 growth factor
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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