On 06/28/2011 09:15 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 11-06-28 09:02 , Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Bernd and Richard, I'd like thank you for generous support of me. But
the email was mostly not about my frustration. I raised several
questions relative to the decision:
* ambiguity of the decision. What does RTL optimizers/RTL maintainer
mean?
Anything related to RTL, in my view. As much as possible, I would
lean towards flexible definitions of maintenance boundaries. If we
make them too inflexible, this will not help reviews (many patches
cross some boundary in trivial ways).
I'd like to have Richard as a reviewer of all RTL part and maintainers
of RTL optimizers except for areas I mentioned. This will still help to
review patches to cross some boundaries. But I think we should think
more about areas I mentioned. They are complicated, solving
NP-problems in heuristic ways. To have a power to change all this
heuristics, someone should have a lot of experience with algorithms in
these areas and not only in general but in GCC environment (for some
reasons some heuristics work well in one compiler and works worse in
another).
In fact, I already wrote I'd like to propose and see him to be IRA
reviewer as, for example, Andrew Belevantsev, Dmitry Melnik and
Alexander Monakov as reviewers of selective scheduler (they wrote it
long ago and maintained it for long time). It could help me a lot and
give more time on what I think I should work more. I don't this because
I am in hard position to ask SC about this as I don't believe that SC
should make the appointments.
We should trust maintainers/reviewers to know their own boundaries and
decide whether a patch touches too many areas they don't feel
comfortable reviewing. This has happened many times in the past, with
no negative consequences. So, reviewers are by and large DTRT.
* appointments are technical decisions and it should be not in
jurisdiction of SC.
* quality of SC decisions.
So, according to what we discussed in London, the SC will essentially
not make appointment decisions. We will recommend them, and they will
agree. If we find unreasonable resistance, we will then see what to
do about that.
Does SC agree with this :) ? They never told us about their decision
(if there is a such decision).
