On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> wrote: > On 13 June 2017 at 01:22, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Jun 12, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure who this is a question to really, but how much value is >>> there in reviewing the other patches? >> >>> Maybe people who know the >>> frontend interface well could comment on that part, but would anyone >>> here be able to do a meaningful review of the core frontend? And AIUI >>> some of the patches are straight imports from an external upstream. >>> >>> I was just wondering whether, once 5, 6 and 7 have been reviewed, >>> accepting the rest would be a policy decision, or whether there >>> was a plan for someone to review the whole series. >> >> So Iain might not have the whole game plan pre-arranged. My guess is that >> it isn't yet. So, technically, people can argue for or against the FE as >> the want, but ultimately, the SC I think gets to make the decision in the >> form of accepting the FE contribution and appointing a FE maintainer. If >> they say yes, then that person can technically self-review the changes to >> the non-shared bits. For the shared bits, the usual maintainer for those >> bits should review and approve those bits. For example, the testsuite >> changes are reviewed by the testsuite maintainer; I've done that, so that's >> done. If there are doc changes, a doc reviewer will review those bits and >> so on. >> >> I'd expect that for the changes that aren't shared, we treat it kinda like >> we do for a new port. There, we usually have a person or two go through and >> weigh in where useful and help refine things a little. If someone wants to >> help out and volunteer to do this, they will. If not, then we just trust >> the FE coming in. The SC will weigh in if they want the contribution >> contingent upon a review. Of course, the global reviewers and/or the SC >> might be able to clarify, as they keep track of the little details better >> than I, the above is just my guess to help get the process started. > > > Right, I actually gave no forewarning other than via IRC, where it got > an acknowledgement from Jakub and Richi, if I recall right, the > response was asking if the SC has formally accepted D and myself as a > maintainer. The answer is 'no' on that front. My initial intent was > to get things in motion again, after they were abruptly halted 4 years > ago.
Yeah, it was to make sure the issue is raised with the SC. Jeff? Richard. > Regards, > Iain.
