On 8 June 2010 05:42, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 06/07/10 14:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> > The gcc project currently has a problem: when people who are not >> > regular gcc developers send in a patch, those patches often get >> > dropped. They get dropped because they do not get reviewed, and they >> > get dropped because after review they do not get committed. This >> > discourages new developers and it means that the gcc project does not >> > move as fast as it could. >> > >> > >> So perhaps the thing to do is somehow separate patches from regular >> contributors and irregular contributors. A relatively easy way to do >> this would be for a regular contributor to include a keyword in their >> message to gcc-patches to mark the thread as not needing 3rd party >> tracking/pings. > > > I am not sure what does that mean in practice. I am only a write after > approval contributor, so I cannot formally approve any patch (except > perhaps to my MELT branch). However, I definitely can follow some > patches (and I even do have an intern, Jeremie Salvucci, who did all the > legal framework and wants to become a GCC contributor). > > It seems that perhaps you are suggesting a status in between reviewers & > W.A.A. contributors.
No, I think you misunderstood. The keyword would only indicate that the patch author does not need anyone to commit it for them. That doesn't change the approval process. It would tell NightStrike there is no need to track the patch.
