Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> other than by following the standard process because this will violate
>>> the LLVM developer policy.
>>
>> Which says what?
>
> http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-and-submitting-a-patch
>
> "Once your patch is ready, submit it by emailing it to the appropriate
> project’s commit mailing list (or commit it directly if applicable).
> Alternatively, some patches get sent to the project’s development list
> or component of the LLVM bug tracker, but the commit list is the
> primary place for reviews and should generally be preferred."
>
>> Your current policy seems to massively impede contributions.
> How? (BTW, I am not the one who sets these policies and discussing
> them with me makes little sense)
Requiring target maintainers to interact with several different
upstream projects to keep their port in gcc in shape just doesn't
scale. There's no such requirement for boehm-gc, libffi, libgo,
classpath, but instead people directly involved in those projects (or
the upstream maintainers themselves) act as liaisons between gcc and
their project, removing that burden. Just libsanitizer is the odd man
out here.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
