Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Chris,
I see you have not received any response to this yet, so let me give
it a try.
Thanks! I unsubscribed from the list and was surprised to see this in
my inbox. Please continue to CC me on replies.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Chris Pickett wrote:
5. Fix what I have
I just committed the patch below which clarifies that maintainers are
allowed to make/approve changes to those parts of our documentation
that are related to their area of maintainership.
This is not a change in policy, just a clarification, but since there
has been some uncertainty in this area
Richard Kenner wrote:
Not much. I'm convinced it would be feasible, but definitely not easy,
so I wanted to see how much interest there was - seems like some, but
not a lot.
Would this comprise retrofitting the support into the 4.2 branch?
I don't think it's needed in the 4.2 branch since you
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We currently do not have an active maintainer for the i386 port. The
> only listed maintainer for the port is rth, and he hasn't been around
> to approve patches in a while. This situation is a bit strange for
> a port that IMHO is one of the
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 04:42:27PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We currently do not have an active maintainer for the i386 port. The
> only listed maintainer for the port is rth, and he hasn't been around
> to approve patches in a while. This situation is a bit strange for
> a port t
Hi,
We currently do not have an active maintainer for the i386 port. The
only listed maintainer for the port is rth, and he hasn't been around
to approve patches in a while. This situation is a bit strange for
a port that IMHO is one of the most important ports GCC has...
In the mean time, pat
