Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

> Similarly, I believe that code reviews are important and valuable.  
> While
> we certainly can't force folks to review the code, if folks are willing
> to review, then the tree-ssa developers ought to embrace that feedback
> and "do the right thing" based on that feedback.  A code review is 
> certainly
> made more valuable if the reviewer has the design background.

I have no problem with getting reviews of the code, or updating the 
code based on that feedback.  I'd like to make that abundantly clear.
I have a significant problem with some of the code not getting reviewed 
for large periods of time, which is the much more likely scenario (as 
unfortunate as that may be)
If you or Richard or Jason aren't the ones doing the reviews (since you 
guys wrote some of the code, or originally approved some of the passes 
on the tree-ssa branch, so presumably, you have no significant problem 
with it), then who exactly is?

I'd rather see multiple people try to review tree-ssa all at once, 
which admittedly, is a large job, but it's just as large as reviewing 
it separately!.
There is nothing to stop different reviewers from reviewing or 
commenting on different parts if it is submitted as a whole. They can 
easily make comments that may be directed at specific parts that people 
can clean up.
If it isn't done this way, then the likely outcome is some pieces of 
tree-ssa in the mainline, some pieces waiting for review, some pieces 
waiting for someone to cleanup, etc.    This would mean all performance 
numbers posted are invalid, and depending what *actually* gets in 
before 3.5, we may or may not have severe regressions.

I just don't see how a piecemeal review and submission of this branch 
is going to help anything, and I believe it is much more likely to hurt 
tree-ssa and gcc than it is to help.

Now, if someone is going to guarantee that all of the pieces tree-ssa 
will be reviewed in a timely manner, or at least will be reviewed and 
processed before 3.5 stage1 is over, then that would go a long way 
towards alleviating my concerns.

--Dan