http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
--- Comment #8 from John Marino <gnugcc at marino dot st> --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7) > But this is something that everybody has to do! It is a trade-off, does it > take more effort to keep the patches up-to-date or to get them approved? The answer is obvious - it's less effort to keep the patches up-to-date. at least, that's my perception based on observation but not first-hand experience. (I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just being honest about *my* perceptions.) > You should expect reviewers to ask for changes. That is the whole point of > having a review process. Sure, that's reasonable. > And for sure you will need to ping the patches several times, there are very > few reviewers and they are doing also 99% of the work, so they miss patches > all the time. Well, while this is the reality of the situation, it's not reasonable. The threat of pinging several times per patch set when it could be several sets of patches is actually why other things have taken priority. I don't what the solution is; I guess I was hoping the system would fix itself but it doesn't sound like that's happened yet. > Also, I think you will need to do a full bootstrap+testsuite, why wouldn't > you be able to do that? If you don't have a machine powerful enough, you may > contact the compile farm to install Dragonfly on a virtual machine: > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm Because I interpret a full bootstrap to mean every major platform that gcc supports. What does "bootstrap" mean? Just a standard build with --disable-boostrap flag not used? I can test the dragonfly platform, but I can't test every variety of linux, solaris, etc. for potential effects. > It is also essential that you submit your port in a way that makes it easy > for reviewers to know what they are supposed to look at. See a good example: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00278.html okay, thanks for providing that example. > > Is there a testing farm and could dragonfly x86-64 be added to it? Frankly > > I don't care about the i386 platform which will go away at some point, the > > sooner the better. In not, you would expect a weekly cron to attempt to > > build gcc and mail the results in automatically? That could be done > > probably. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm > > I am not sure what are the requirements for a tertiary platform, but surely > they are very loose once accepted: The port has to be basically unmaintained > to get removed. understood. DF should be easy to keep maintained once it's in. Does that means it's just a matter of requesting a virtual machine on the compile farm and having an assigned responsible to respond to potential fallout that shows on DF test reports only? It looks like I would qualify esp. given I have commit access to three separate BSD projects (DragonFly, FreeBSD, and NetBSD).
