On May 25, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Thomas Neumann wrote:
Unfortunately reviewing as been, ahem, a bit slow.
:-( I'd ask if the SC has had any luck finding suitable reviewers
yet... I do think Fortran has about the right number judging from the
latency on patch review. They have about 1 review
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 07:04:01PM +0200, Thomas Neumann wrote:
> I see your point. I originally thought I would be sending one patch for
> whole gcc (as I have the complete patch ready), just broken into smaller
> parts for reviewing.
If possible,
1) Break patches up into parts which can be a
> looking for something to review. And when posting a patch, try to make it
> easy for reviewers to tell that your patch is for their part of GCC.
I see your point. I originally thought I would be sending one patch for
whole gcc (as I have the complete patch ready), just broken into smaller
parts f
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:26:35PM +0200, Thomas Neumann wrote:
>
> Therefore I am offering a deal to potential reviewers: If you promise to
> review some of my patches, I will code something _you_ care about.
> Within reasonable limits, of course :)
A more traditional approach would be to use
On 25/05/07, Thomas Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
about two weeks ago I started submitting patches for C++ compatibility.
Unfortunately reviewing as been, ahem, a bit slow. Probably because
nobody cares about C++ compatibility. As I have only send 4% of the
total patch so far, the curre
Hi,
about two weeks ago I started submitting patches for C++ compatibility.
Unfortunately reviewing as been, ahem, a bit slow. Probably because
nobody cares about C++ compatibility. As I have only send 4% of the
total patch so far, the current acceptance rate (as in 0 patches in 2
weeks) bothers m
