This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Getting the ARC port reviewed and accepted
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: jeremy dot bennett at embecosm dot com, David Edelsohn <edelsohn at gnu dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at embecosm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 15:30:34 +0200
- Subject: Re: Getting the ARC port reviewed and accepted
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5249A23F dot 8000901 at embecosm dot com> <CAFiYyc0Uo_UOo6tBSVtXJK4giQLiL6BhWWJA3=grds8deA3qMA at mail dot gmail dot com> <524A9173 dot 30301 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3ZJe_1XOOY5MeRD4UjOnc=KS9B1eTrgjPATT4OHNC-=A at mail dot gmail dot com> <524ACD05 dot 2020701 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 11:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> Well, I want clarification as of whether assigning maintainership of the
>> port is equivalent to getting approval for checking in the port specific
>> parts. Which_I_ would think is reasonable (for the maintainer being
>> Joern even more so).
>
>
> Well, sure it is. If Joern is the maintainer he don't need anyone else
> to approve his patches to his own port.
Good. So what remains is the configure parts, the libgcc parts and
the documentation parts. Though for all of them they look ARC
specific so maybe the maintainership covers these as well.
I suppose this automatism when being assigned the maintainership
escaped Joern as well ... ;)
Richard.
> Andrew.
>