Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Jun 4, 2006, at 2:08 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On 6/4/06, Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Even if it's not intended that way, your proposal is probably >>> going to >>> be interpreted at some stage as a way of punishing maintainers. >> >> And what is wrong with that? > > I have a different take... I think people should be responsible for > the patches they put in, and that means that in general, they should > work on bugs and regressions in those patches before going off on fun > new work. This, if we wanted, could be enforced by accepting patches > to fix regressions before accepting (any) other work by that person. > This transfers responsibility from the person that approved the work, > which, I'd rather not see in general, as it can discourage patch > review, to the person doing the work.
I agree. And I don't think a new gcc by-law is needed here (we seem so many of those already). Maintainers can already refuse to review a "fun new feature" patch until the submitter has fixed some problem with one of the submitter's earlier patches (if the maintainer thinks that's appropriate). I remember at least one case where it has already happened. Richard
