On 10/02/2013 01:46 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Haley<a...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2013 12:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
It is unfortunate that global reviewers are so busy that they cannot
review the few, infrequent new port submissions. But I find it very
distasteful for someone to hyperventilate because other, busy people
don't do something that appears obvious.
I'm sure you do, but I find it far more distasteful to have a willing
volunteer blocked for so long under such circumstances. This is not
the way that we should be doing things.
Productive, helpful suggestions on how to improve the situation are welcome.
Clearly, insisting that only one of the few global maintainers can
review the port is a problem. Global maintainers don't scale. There
is no reason why the maintainer of another port can't review this
port. It doesn't necessarily need an global maintainer.
While a technical review of the port would undoubtedly be helpful, it
does not make any sense to block the ARC port until it receives one:
this is an unbounded wait.
If there aren't any middle-end changes, the consequence of an ARC port
that's not good is at worst an ARC port in GCC that is not good. Even
if there are middle-end changes, these can be reviewed separately.
The downside of continuing to block this submission for another year
is obvious, and is, I submit, worse than the downside of accepting a
port that still needs some work.
Andrew.
