On 6/15/07 3:31 PM, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> follow-up, and I'm fine with that. OTOH I do object (with a smiley) to
> being labeled something that -- even though I can understand its meaning
> from the ancient greek I studied -- I haven't the slightest idea how to
> pronounce (sorry, "autopoiesis
Brooks Moses wrote:
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with formalizing this for the Fortran
maintainers in bulk, at least without discussion. My understanding (and
it's entirely possible that I've missed something) was that this wasn't
so much a formal rule as a general custom -- and, being a
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I wish to applogize to the Fortran maintainers if I have sturred up a
hornet's nest. I had been told that the Fortran maintainers followed
the rule, as a convention among themselves, that individuals did not
approve their own non trivial patches. When the three of us becam
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:28:58PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> > At 09:40 PM 6/14/2007, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:48:22PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> > >> I have no objection to this as a custom for GFortran, certainly -- I
> > >> think it's a very good idea, and as a c
Mostly what I want is some discussion about what we expect this to
mean as a formal rule, and how strictly we're expecting to
interpret it. For values of "we" meaning both the GFortran
maintainers, and the wider GCC maintainer community.
I agree with your intrepretation of this rule exactl
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:28:58PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> At 09:40 PM 6/14/2007, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:48:22PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> >> I have no objection to this as a custom for GFortran, certainly -- I
> >> think it's a very good idea, and as a custom I ve
At 09:40 PM 6/14/2007, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:48:22PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> I have no objection to this as a custom for GFortran, certainly -- I
> think it's a very good idea, and as a custom I very much support it.
> However, there have historically been reasonable
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:48:22PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
>
> I have no objection to this as a custom for GFortran, certainly -- I
> think it's a very good idea, and as a custom I very much support it.
> However, there have historically been reasonable exceptions to it. In
> particular, I'
(Because this concerns policy rather than code, I've cc'ed it to the
main gcc list rather than the patches list.)
FX Coudert wrote:
I noticed in MAINTAINERS that there is a new category of "Non-
Autopoiesis Maintainers" (I certainly missed the original
announcement), for maintainers who canno
