This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/13] D: Submission of D Front End
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Iain Buclaw <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 13 June 2017 at 01:22, Mike Stump <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Richard Sandiford <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure who this is a question to really, but how much value is
>>> there in reviewing the other patches?
>>> Maybe people who know the
>>> frontend interface well could comment on that part, but would anyone
>>> here be able to do a meaningful review of the core frontend? And AIUI
>>> some of the patches are straight imports from an external upstream.
>>> I was just wondering whether, once 5, 6 and 7 have been reviewed,
>>> accepting the rest would be a policy decision, or whether there
>>> was a plan for someone to review the whole series.
>> So Iain might not have the whole game plan pre-arranged. My guess is that it isn't yet. So, technically, people can argue for or against the FE as the want, but ultimately, the SC I think gets to make the decision in the form of accepting the FE contribution and appointing a FE maintainer. If they say yes, then that person can technically self-review the changes to the non-shared bits. For the shared bits, the usual maintainer for those bits should review and approve those bits. For example, the testsuite changes are reviewed by the testsuite maintainer; I've done that, so that's done. If there are doc changes, a doc reviewer will review those bits and so on.
>> I'd expect that for the changes that aren't shared, we treat it kinda like we do for a new port. There, we usually have a person or two go through and weigh in where useful and help refine things a little. If someone wants to help out and volunteer to do this, they will. If not, then we just trust the FE coming in. The SC will weigh in if they want the contribution contingent upon a review. Of course, the global reviewers and/or the SC might be able to clarify, as they keep track of the little details better than I, the above is just my guess to help get the process started.
> Right, I actually gave no forewarning other than via IRC, where it got
> an acknowledgement from Jakub and Richi, if I recall right, the
> response was asking if the SC has formally accepted D and myself as a
> maintainer. The answer is 'no' on that front. My initial intent was
> to get things in motion again, after they were abruptly halted 4 years
Yeah, it was to make sure the issue is raised with the SC. Jeff?