Re: VTA merge - introduction

[Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Alexandre Oliva<aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Jun ?5, 2009, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would appreciate if VTA were not merged until the community has
>> reached a consensus that it actually wants this feature.
>
> I suppose you're suggesting the patch should get more than approval from
> a single global maintainer to get in. ?I think we have consensus on
> that. ?I'm sorry that I didn't think of making that clear, and I
> apologize for any distress it may have caused.
>
> The idea of posting the patches in such an unpolished state was
> precisely to enable the very kind of community discussion you request,
> both here in the list and at the Summit.
>
>
> As for consensus... ?In my political experience, this term has been used
> with various different meanings, ranging all the way from “absolutely
> everyone agrees” to “a majority of the decision makers agree”.
>
> Did you have any specific criteria in mind, both in terms of
> decision-making procedure for this kind of patch, and in terms of
> objective criteria this particular patch should meet in order to be
> eligible for acceptance?

I don't think we need special rules for the merge of this branch - we should
trust our maintainers and reviewers to consider all responses to the
individual patches appropriately.

I have taken the patch series as a request for an initial review, not as
a series that is supposed to be in mergable state (which as a major
change would require to fulfill the branch merging criteria).

Richard.