Make Francois-Xavier Coudert, Thomas Koenig and Paul Thomas Reviewers?

[Paul Thomas]

Paul,

Sorry about the delay in replying - yesterday, we had a huge fire in the 
forest behind our house, which resulted in our being evacuated 
overnight.  There is still firefighting going on and I have just had to 
give the firemen access across our land to connect to our irrigation 
water supply.

I had an exchange with Steven about this.  He voiced the opinion that 
the number of reviewers would become excessive and that this would 
reduce the confidence that other gcc maintainers have in gfortran; or in 
the control of the reviewing process.  I can see what he means but 
cannot see another way around progressing the work on gfortran when its 
reviewers are so pressed for time.  We should strive, therefore, to make 
sure that the reviewing is completely open.  In the course of our 
discussion, Steven opened my eyes to the existence of the patch queue.  
I honestly had no idea of its existence.  We must also make sure that it 
is used by all the contributors and the reviewers.

Paul Brook wrote:

>>I propose that Francois-Xavier Coudert, Thomas Koenig (if he is willing
>>- I have not discussed it with him) and I be made reviewers.  We are all
>>sensible enough that we can defer on contributions that are outside our
>>experience or competence.  In addition, since the reviewing process is
>>entirely open, there is really little prospect of disaster.  
>>    
>>
>
>Ok. Please update the webpages/docs to reflect this.
>  
>
Francois-Xavier; the pompier-sapeurs are back again - could you take 
care of this, please?

>>Perhaps, it 
>>would be a good idea, whilst we still have provisional licences, that 24
>>hours elapse before our giving a green light on the list and the
>>contributor committing, so that those with more experience can keep an
>>eye on what we are doing?
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think there's any need to formalise this. If you think this is 
>appropriate, just say so in your review mail. As always if you're unsure 
>about something, say so and either don't approve the patch, or make approval 
>conditional on someone else agreeing that the change is OK.
>  
>
OK

>Patch approvals should be driven by what you feel confident reviewing, not how 
>important the bugfix/feature it.
>  
>
Agreed.

Paul T