On Tue, 30 May 2017, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 05/30/2017 09:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> This leaves the nvptx and c6x ports without a maintainer. Do >> you have any recommendations for a successor here? > Not really. It would be a shame to lose the C6X port though. If I'm > CC'd on any bug reports I'm prepared to keep it working - if that's > considered sufficient, I can readd myself as maintainer.
I think that would be preferrable. Even if practically it may not make a huge difference, people with less background/involvement will know who to contact, and having an entire port without maintainer just doesn't feel right. Gerald
