This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Release Schedule issues and doubts


Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
> On Jun 4, 2006, at 2:08 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On 6/4/06, Richard Sandiford <richard@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> Even if it's not intended that way, your proposal is probably  
>>> going to
>>> be interpreted at some stage as a way of punishing maintainers.
>>
>> And what is wrong with that?
>
> I have a different take...  I think people should be responsible for  
> the patches they put in, and that means that in general, they should  
> work on bugs and regressions in those patches before going off on fun  
> new work.  This, if we wanted, could be enforced by accepting patches  
> to fix regressions before accepting (any) other work by that person.   
> This transfers responsibility from the person that approved the work,  
> which, I'd rather not see in general, as it can discourage patch  
> review, to the person doing the work.

I agree.  And I don't think a new gcc by-law is needed here (we seem so
many of those already).  Maintainers can already refuse to review a "fun
new feature" patch until the submitter has fixed some problem with one
of the submitter's earlier patches (if the maintainer thinks that's
appropriate).  I remember at least one case where it has already
happened.

Richard


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