This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Reduce Dwarf Debug Size
- From: "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- To: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant at google dot com>, "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:30:03 +0000
- Subject: Re: Reduce Dwarf Debug Size
- References: <352a1fb20703011054s31e07ea1ye93eaa49fcc513e1@mail.gmail.com> <CB04DB52-9F4A-4043-87D5-B4393316DACA@apple.com> <45E7656F.4040209@codesourcery.com> <57B0CF14-E869-48BE-8AC1-CD881F6860D0@apple.com> <de8d50360703011700m2c6994b4x722aa45bfaeed858@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0703012004140.4448@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> <de8d50360703011730x73b06889o41a1be2f5cb8518b@mail.gmail.com> <4437282B-AC3F-48FF-A226-513DF9D5E997@apple.com> <m3649jvdt5.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0703021205470.18094@caipclassic.rutgers.edu>
On 02/03/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
Perhaps a middle ground between what we have now, and "trust but verify",
would be to have a "without objection" rule. I.e. certain people are
authorized to post patches and if no one objects within say two weeks,
then they could then check it in. I think that would help clear up the
backlog while still allowing people to comment *before* the patch goes in.
I am new here but since my recent ping-floods have been used as
arguments to foster some opinions, I think I will give my opinion.
I think the "without objection rule" is a bad idea. As it has been
said already, relevant maintainers may be on vacation, may be busy
during 2 weeks, or the patch may have fallen through the cracks. And
precisely the latter is what I perceive as the real problem that a
"without objection rule" will not solve and will actually introduce
another problem: undesirable unreviewed patches get committed.
The problem is not that reviewers do not review, they do. If you ping
a patch it will get reviewed sooner or later. The problem is that if
the submitter does not insist, the patch will go unnoticed. I guess
there may be many reasons for not insisting and many reasons why the
patches go unnoticed. Some reasons have been pointed out already:
reviewers waiting for other reviewers to step in, submitter losing
interest from lack of feedback, submitters ignore that they need to
ping or how often, lack of reviews from non-maintainers, reviewers
tend to focus on recent patches, ...
Neither "trust but verify" or "without objection rule" would solve any
of these problems.
Just an uninformed opinion from a newbie,
Manuel.