This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Unreviewed patch
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>
- Cc: tromey at redhat dot com, kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, joern dot rennecke at superh dot com, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, GCC Hackers <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:09:41 +0100 (BST)
- Subject: Re: Unreviewed patch
- References: <200306121332.h5CDWGJ10519@r-rr.iij4u.or.jp> <87u1av8jrb.fsf@fleche.redhat.com><1055431003.28049.299.camel@escape>
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Anthony Green wrote:
> > I believe we've agreed in the past that port maintainers can make
> > port-specific libffi changes. So I think you can check in your fix on
> > that basis.
>
> The situation is a little frustrating because it's not made explicit in
> the MAINTAINERS file. I once tried to clear this up with the SC through
> one of its members, but got no reply.
cvswrite.html currently says:
Maintainers of a port maintain the files in config/port/, the
configure fragments for the port, documentation for the port
and test cases for features or bugs specific to this port. Port
maintainers do not have approval rights in other files.
Perhaps this should be expanded to list target-specific files outside the
gcc directory. In that case, the FIXME in sourcebuild.texi asking for a
list of such places, in the checklist of what's needed in a target port,
could be filled in at the same time.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk