On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 16:54 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> I think in your position as a maintainer for "diagnostic messages", >> you should be qualified to exercise that status to approve such a >> patch. :-) > I don't know exactly where the boundaries of that role are; I've been > assuming it means anything relating to the diagnostic subsystem itself > (and location-tracking), as opposed to *usage* of the system. The > patch in question is more about the latter. That said, your patch > looks very reasonable to me (but as I mentioned, a test case > demonstrating the improved caret locations would be good). > > Steering committee: am I being too conservative in my interpretation of > that role?
Somehow your question seems to have been missed? Sorry about that. For the sake of full disclosure, on the steering committee we usually do not dive super deeply into what a maintainer's domain entails and what not. What I generally see is that being a bit liberal, especially when you know that adjacent area and are confident, tends to work for everyone. (It's not that we have excessive review capacity.) Gerald
