> > >>>>> Giovanni Bajo writes: > > Giovanni> This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the > policy is > Giovanni> not on the maintainers that prepare the patches? The people > involved in this > Giovanni> change have been working on GCC much longer than those who (later) > objected. > Giovanni> They should have known our rules much better, and they should have > asked a > Giovanni> buy-in from SC before starting this work, instead of silently > forcing it in, > Giovanni> and then see if they could shut up the people who object (if any). > > This is an unfair characterization. Target-specific changes have > been committed to GCC close to a release ever since I started working on > GCC over fifteen years ago. Every Release Manager has tried to accomodate > port maintainers.
Maybe in the past but those were exceptions and never should have the rule. In fact the same day at which I raised an objection, the RM rejected an even simplier patch which only touches an installed header and not the compiler itself. > I also do not see anyone trying to prevent people from objecting. > I do see a few people repeatedly raising the same objections without > constructive suggestions, despite public replies responding to the > concerns. That type of discussion is not productive. Your attitude towards Joern's request for help with a regression was really what got my over the board. Your suggestion that a primary target was more important even for an enhancement matter than over a regression was really out of line. I actually did raise more than just objections, I also suggested a way to get this resolve this, by delaying the release of 4.1 by two more months. I know this pointed at me but it looks like you never really read my emails after all. -- Pinski
