This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: Loop unroll fixes

Jim Wilson <> writes:

> The gcc development process does not work that way.  Sometimes it does take
> months before someone has time to review a patch.
>  You can't check in a
> patch just because someone didn't review it fast enough to make you happy.
> I also object on the grounds that you have done this twice now.  Once in
> PR 3384 as described above, and once in todays mail.  You are trying to
> bully people into reviewing a patch that furthers your own personal
> agenda.
No, I'd rather believe he's trying to just bully people into reviewing
a patch.
Which is good, in reality.
It shouldn't take months to review patches.
If it takes bullying to make review of patches happen, so be it.
If it takes adding more people who have blanket write privs, or
whatever, so be it.
The idea that a patch *should* take months to review is just plain
absurd, unless it's rewriting half of gcc.

> No, I didn't forget about the patch.  I am willing to review it, but in
> protest of the heavy handed tactics being used, and the complexity of the
> problem, I will defer taking action for one week.
This is the wrong approach.
Your job, as a maintainer, is to review patches.
It's not some "honor", or exalted position.
You are supposed to review every patch, that comes into your area, in
a reasonable amount of time.  Months is not reasonable.
If you can't do this, don't be a maintainer.
Deferring action for a week just looks like you are trying to have a
fiefdom of your own.

> Jim

"My girlfriend does her nails with white-out.  When she's asleep,
I go over there and write misspelled words on them.
"-Steven Wright

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