Laurent GUERBY wrote: > Looks good. I think it would be slightly more secure to have people > commit the patch with a unique name in some access-controlled CVS > (either some subdir of the GCC one or a new local one) than relying on > email "From" fields at the cost of minor inconvenience. >
We also can enforce the rules by asking that patches to be signed, but after all, GCC contributors are well educated hackers. > Also for the cvs update, I assume one of the machine will do an > rsync of the whole CVS repository to factor external bandwidth cost > and it enables some binary search stuff at no external bandwidth cost. > okay. > On IRC, I was reminded that some developpers have machine that are less > powerfull than the old donated servers or don't have x86 access, so they > may use them to test their patch before submission. People in this case, > please send me a private email so that I'm able to count the number of > developpers that could benefit just from the access to some machine to > do GCC work. > Indeed, this is another service that can be provided.
