Re: MAINTAINERS policy question

[David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>]

>>>>> Mark Mitchell writes:

Mark> I would extend it to documentation that affects X, config.foo files
Mark> that affect X, and so forth...

	What about collect2.c?  What about parts of libstdc++?  What about
libtool?  What about config.gcc?  There is no clear definition of "so
forth".  We only have obscured the ambiguity which remains.

	Remember that there are a lot of machine-dependent infrastructure
pieces distributed throughout the common files in GCC which were
implemented for just one target or only a few targets.  The register
allocator clearly is global, common infrastructure and the config files
clearly are local to a port, but some of GCC falls in the gray area
inbetween.  It is fallacious reasoning to generalize from specific
components like the register allocator to all components throughout the
entire compiler.

	There is a difference between policy and practice.  I propose that
the policy should remain liberal while continuing to be implemented more
narrowly in practice.  In other words, one waits for approval from the
maintainer of a component or someone with global write privilege as a
courtesy.

	I think Bernd's original question is ill-formed and is generating
an inaccurate response.  GCC is not implemented with the clear dichotomy
that the question of "any patch affecting port X versus config/X/*"
implies.  Simplistic, hasty answers to a complex question intertwined with
GCC's design diverse target support will not help GCC development, IMHO.

David