Re: Re; Maintaining, was: Re: Reduce Dwarf Debug Size

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Mar 1, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> No I am not saying that.  I am saying that those patches might not  
> be worth commenting on.

Or, maybe they are.  I think it would be better to have a policy that  
addresses this issue, rather than require 18 months of silence for  
someone to infer it.  Maybe I should just send out an email

I don't see why:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg02031.html

was a bad thing.  i think gcc would have been better if it had just  
been committed.

Likewise:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00167.html

> If you feel they are worth commenting on, then comment on them but  
> I don't see you commenting on those patches at all.

Only so much time in the day.  I occasionally do comment on them.

>   I have not seen any patches that require 4-5 pings,

You must not be subscribed to the gcc-patches list:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00052.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00051.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00048.html

?