Mostly what I want is some discussion about what we expect this to
mean as a formal rule, and how strictly we're expecting to
interpret it. For values of "we" meaning both the GFortran
maintainers, and the wider GCC maintainer community.
I agree with your intrepretation of this rule exactly as you stated
it, and as it is stated on http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/ : approval of
non-obvious patches is required as a rule, but the scope of "obvious"
can be extended at times, and it's also possible to send a patch
asking if anyone has comments, saying that you plan on committing it
on a given date. I did change the Fortran maintainers from the
standard category to this new one because it seemed close to what we
currently do.
To come to the heart of the issue, I don't think it will be
intepreted to our disadvantage by the GCC community. From the past,
it seemed that the steering committee and release managers have kept
to a simple line: the Fortran maintainers have a system that works,
even though it's not completely the same as the usual GCC
maintainership. If it works well, let's keep it that way. [1] I feel
that we have a wide margin to make our decisions. After all, IIRC,
the "mostly non-autopoiesis" system that we have is something we came
up with, not the steering committee.
In short: I understand your point of view, and I think we have been
given enough liberty for Fortran choices in the past not to worry
about this MAINTAINERS category not 100% describing our policy.
FX
[1] I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding the policy that is applied to
us; and I want to note that I'm only speaking about maintainership,
not the development and branches rules, for which we're going slowly
toward the standard GCC practices.
- Re: [patch,committed] Make Fortran maintainers "Non-... FX Coudert
-
