Gah! My seond procedural post in as many days, sorry. First: I've been very disappointed by the tone that some gcc developers have taken against Liqin. We've built up an awful lot of rules and procedures around gcc -- with many more now than when I started six years ago -- and I don't think it's reasonable to expect newcomers to absorb them all in one go. Sure, people should read the instructions on the web pages, but they're still not going to be fluent in them straight away.
ISTR there was talk at the GCC summit about being more open and responsive to new ports. I think this submission shows we failed. More important (and getting off the soap-box, or at least changing to a different one): people seem to be saying that Liqin acted wrongly in checking in patches to the port. Surely the procedural problem was at the FSF end: a global maintainer gave permission for something to be added before any maintainer had been appointed for it. Under the circumstances, perhaps we should cut Liqin some slack? I don't know who else the SC could possibly appoint. Richard
