On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Diego Novillo wrote: >> * 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). > > 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.
I agree, and note that this was not a new area being introduced, but one that existed as such for a while. To reemphasize the point, I know projects where there is just one status that allows for committing to the tree(s) and every committer is assumed to use good judgement on what to commit/approve and when to defer. And like Diego I feel where applicable (global reviewers, broader areas,...) this has been working out well for GCC. >> * appointments are technical decisions and it should be not in >> jurisdiction of SC. For the record, while I can understand everything else written here, I personally disagree with the statement that appointments are technical decisions only. As we have seen over time (more so in other projects than GCC, luckily) there is a huge, huge non-technical component to that. > 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. The question, I guess, is who "we" is. Though, practically, what you describe and what has been happening more or less for years is pretty much the same. :-) Gerald
