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] |
On 10/28/2015 07:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
You didn't answer my question. I asked why you committed a patch given it didn't meet the conditions Bernd set forth for approval. I didn't ask anything about the bug itself. So I'll ask again, why did you commit a patch which you clearly knew did not meet the conditions Bernd set forth for approval?I believed that aarch64 backend didn't properly handle -fno-plt, which shouldn't block my patch.
Speaking strictly for myself at the moment... --You ought to know better than that. A conditional approval was given, but your patch did not meet the conditions and thus it can not be considered approved.
At that point you could have *asked* if your patch could go forward, or worked with the AArch64 maintainers (who are very responsive) to reach a resolution and resubmitted a joint patch.
Instead you knowingly committed an unapproved patch.Conditional approvals are a tool reviewers can use to help move patches along a little faster as are commit privileges. Both rely on a level of trust that the reviewers and project as a whole extends to the contributor, namely that the contributor will only commit approved patches. If a contributor can't be trusted to follow that rule, then we've got a serious problem.
-- Jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |