Backports of foreign patches?

[Paul Richard Thomas]

Hi Harald,

I agree completely with Thomas on this. That said, don't be too diligent
about it. The gcc version with Fedora 33 is 10.2.1 and I presume that other
distros are keeping similarly up to date.

Regards

Paul


On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 at 09:53, Thomas Koenig via Fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:

> Hi Harald,
>
> What I'm writing below is my personal opinion, if anybody feels
> differently, please chime in.
>
>  > just a hypothetical question: assume that some patch for a regression
> was
>  > applied only to e.g. master some time ago but might be worth a backport,
>  > the regression was indicated in the PR, and the patch author does not
> answer
>  > any related queries in the PR?
>  >
>  > How could/should/would one proceed?
>  >
>  > Would it be acceptable to backport the patch after a sufficient
> waiting time
>  > (at least e.g. one or two months)?
>
> I would say yes.  Using "git gcc-backport" automatically credits
> the original author, so that's OK.  Regarding the time frame, it
> probably makes sense to backport before the next release of that
> particular branch.
>
> That is, if it does apply cleanly.  If there is some work needed
> that exceeds being cosmetic, then this would in effect be a new
> patch, which would require review.
>
>  > With a notification to the ML?
>
> Not needed if it applies cleanly.
>
>  > Or does
>  > it require an additional OK from a reviewer?
>
> Only if it is a substantial rewrite (see above).
>
>  > Or would one pass an invisible red line?
>
> Certainly not for me - I would feel bad about not reacting
> in the first place, but not about somebody backporting
> one of my patches.
>
> Best regards
>
>      Thomas
>


-- 
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" -
Albert Einstein