https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #29 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Tim Ruehsen from comment #28) > I far as I can read, not a patch is missing. A review + commit is missing. > How can you ask for more developers (=patches) when the work is ignored ? > Don't get me wrong, I just try to understand how this should work. I'm actually not asking for more patches. As you can see, many of those PRs already have patches. People send patches all the time. Sometimes very large ones, and many times they never get committed, because they do not ping them, or they do not address the reviewers' comments, or simply they get bored and move to something else. What we need is people that are "patient and motivated" to get their code committed to the upstream repository. Unfortunately, getting reviews is hard because there are few developers and they are busy, and new developers often fail to insist because they feel their work is being ignored or they do not have time to follow-up and do the changes asked by the reviewers. It is a vicious circle that I do not know how to solve. As a volunteer, I know a patch of mine may take weeks/months to get reviewed. I simply keep pinging (see https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Community for tips on how to do this effectively). If I have free time, I work on something else; if not, well, then it doesn't matter that it did not get reviewed yet. I am not in a hurry. I don't have a deadline or a boss to present results. It is better that it gets fixed in a year or two than never. For example, it took many years to get something as simple as coloured output for diagnostics, but it finally happened. This was not because the core GCC devs had a meeting and said "Oh, Clang is kicking our ass with their colors, let's make this a priority". No, it took one volunteer insisting during many months, revisions of patches and compromises. It did not actually take a lot of coding time in total, but it was a process spread across many months.
