This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: PING^2: resubmitted IRA improvement patches

From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
To: bernds at codesourcery dot com
Cc: bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, richard dot guenther at gmail dot com, vmakarov at redhat dot com, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:26:31 EDT
Subject: Re: PING^2: resubmitted IRA improvement patches
References: <4CA4F868.2080009@redhat.com> <AANLkTim2ZbjTsr=2yAVFKg2S4sV14GeQc1ha5gKgA55P@mail.gmail.com> <4CA9FF73.2050209@redhat.com> <4CAA3D3D.9020601@codesourcery.com> <4CAB2286.8050404@redhat.com> <4CAB2576.7090006@codesourcery.com>

> I have the feeling that in practice, patches are often approved based on
> trust, rather than detailed review, anyway.  It would be better to make
> that explicit.

I think a better way to put that would be that the level of depth of a
review is often influenced by the degree of trust of the submitter.  But
I see nothing wrong with that.

References:
- Re: PING^2: resubmitted IRA improvement patches
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: PING^2: resubmitted IRA improvement patches
  - From: Vladimir Makarov
- Re: PING^2: resubmitted IRA improvement patches
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: PING^2: resubmitted IRA improvement patches
  - From: Vladimir Makarov
- Re: PING^2: resubmitted IRA improvement patches
  - From: Bernd Schmidt

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