This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] Enforce GMP/MPFR version requires and fix fortran/28276,27021


On 9/25/06, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:24:56AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> writes:
>
> > How many other patches have simply whithered and died
> > while waiting for review?
>
> http://www.dberlin.org/patches/patches/list
>

I have followed the rules as outlined here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches

I'm happy to update the contribution to say that it is highly recommended to use patchqueue signals if nobody has a problem with it.

The patch queue is irrelevant in that a patch listed there
can bitrot from neglect just like the bitrot that occurs
with gcc-patches@.  If you actually look at the queue
there are patches listed that are on the order of 12 months
old.

Their are occasionally patches that get reviewed without :REVIEWMAIL:'s. Eventually someone notices and removes the patch from the queue. Of course, some of these that falling through the cracks are legimate areas that need more attention. A bunch of the other patches are waiting for stage1, and they know it :) In neither case is the answer to the solution "just commit the patch".

The rules also need to be updated to say to copy the relevant
maintainers on patches.
Again, not every maintainer can pick out the patches in his area just
from titles of emails on gcc-patches.


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