[PATCH] Enforce GMP/MPFR version requires and fix fortran/28276,27021

[Diego Novillo]

Steve Kargl wrote on 09/25/06 14:46:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 02:21:39PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> On 9/25/06, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 08:06:21AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>> Steve Kargl wrote on 09/25/06 00:36:
>>>>
>>>>> If no one reviews the toplevel changes within the next few
>>>>> days, I will commit the changes under the implicitly approved
>>>>> rule.
>>>>>
>>>> The WHAT rule?  No such thing exists.
>>> How many other patches have simply whithered and died
>>> while waiting for review?
>> If you can't get a review after pinging the maintainer, the proper
>> thing to do is to bring it up to the SC.
>> They would probably then appoint more maintainers.
>> Patch review is not a problem solved by simply not doing it.
> 
> The "implicitly approved rule" has two possible outcomes if
> an unreviewed patch is applied.
> 
>   1) The patch is applied.  It works as tested by the 
>   developer and as expected.  Life goes on.
> 
>   2) The patch is applied.  The bootstrap or the compiler is broken
>   for someone.  That person can request the patch be reverted.  At
>   which point, everyone will scream about the lack of a review and the
>   developer can show via the gcc-patches@ archive that the patch was
>   available for review for the previous XXX weeks but no one cared 
>   enough to comment.
> 
3) The patch is applied.  It works, but it's ill-designed and merely
papers over the problem or introduces hidden side-effects on other parts
of the code.  The maintainer for the code spends several days trying to
figure out changes he wasn't aware of and needs to re-write your patch.


Really, if a maintainer is doing a bad job reviewing patches we need to
find more maintainers.  If you think you understand the area well
enough, by all means suggest your name to the SC.  If the current
maintainer agrees, we all win.  We gain little by allowing unrestricted
modifications to the compiler.


You may also want to suggest this "implicitly approved rule" to the SC.
 I would vote against it, but then I'm not in the SC, so you may get lucky.