On 06/13/2017 02:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > 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? David E. raised it earlier today.
Jeff
