On 5 August 2016 at 19:26, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> I'd be happy to see my hypothesis disproved.
Does it matter?
There are lots of people contributing a few patches, and there are
also a few people contributing lots of patches. Trying to prove or
disprove a hypothesis about the health of the
On 5 August 2016 at 18:34, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> I've given the 2012-2015 numbers below, just to show that (for the files
> in gcc/*.[ch]) your hypothesis doesn't hold. The vast majority of
> committers make <20 commits in a year.
My hypothesis is that fewer people are increasingly doing mos
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 04:38:30PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> I think those conclusions are debatable:
I won't respond to all your points (I'm busy this evening), but I can
regenerate my table with some of your suggestions.
> * GCC has also grown over the years, there is a lot more cod
On 08/05/2016 10:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I believe that Diego tried setting up an alternative patch review
system using Reitveld, but it did not catch on.
And there were some before that :-)
For Go development I have been using Gerrit, an instance hosted at
Google (https://go-review.go
I'm not going to reply to any specific points, but I do want to
comment that I've come to believe that e-mail based patch review is a
problem. Unfortunately, I do not foresee the GCC maintainers moving
away from it.
I believe that Diego tried setting up an alternative patch review
system using Re
On 5 August 2016 at 15:06, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:12:36PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> This is a problem throughout GCC. We have a single C++ maintainer, a
>> single part-time C maintainer, none? for libiberty, no regular
>> maintainer for build machinery, and
On 08/04/2016 04:49 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Global Reviewers are welcome to review OpenACC/OpenMP/offloading patches.
But that doesn't help if that's then not happening in reality. (With the
exception of Bernd, who then did review such patches for a while, but
also seems to have stopped with
On 08/05/2016 06:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 4 August 2016 at 21:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
d) Delegate hierarchically. Module owners should seek and delegate to people
with svn-write powers and ask for reviews in exchange of reviews.
Advantages: No loss in quality, distribute work, cr
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:12:36PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 04/08/16 15:49, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >I suppose, if I weren't paid for paid for this, I would have run away
> >long ago, and would have looked for another project to contribute to.
> >:-(
>
> You are a *paid* developer f
On 4 August 2016 at 21:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> d) Delegate hierarchically. Module owners should seek and delegate to people
> with svn-write powers and ask for reviews in exchange of reviews.
>
> Advantages: No loss in quality, distribute work, creates an economy of
> reviews.
>
> Disadvan
On 5 August 2016 at 12:16, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> - a "2-week rule"; if a patch by a reviewer goes unreviewed for 2
> weeks, the reviewer can commit it without review. A bit like your
> option a).
>
>
> The 2-week rule, in particular, came about due to frustration with
> lack of reviews.
Two we
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> At least half of the global reviewers in MAINTAINERS never review any
> patches. Most of them are not active any more and presumably do not read GCC
> emails.
>
> I'm not sure how to address this problem, but there is definitely a probl
Status
==
The GCC 6 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
We are close to a GCC 6.2 release now with a release candidate
expected at the end of next or the beginning of the week after.
Please go over your assigned bugs and see whether some of the
fixes you have done on trunk
13 matches
Mail list logo
