On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 08:15, Richard Kenner wrote:
>> This is a problem with GCC's lack of modularity, not with Basile's
>> point of view.
>
> I don't think it's a totally modularity issue. Compilers, by their nature,
> are some of the most complicated and interdependent programs around.
I agr
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:52 AM
> To: Weddington, Eric
> Cc: Ian Lance Taylor; Basile STARYNKEVITCH; GCC Mailing List
> Subject: RE: increasing the number of GCC reviewers
&g
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> It is true however that currently we are not encouraging outsiders to
> contribute, because old timers work on mostly large patches (or large
> sequences of patches) that reviewers know about. For the same reason, it is
> easier for small patches to fal
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Weddington, Eric wrote:
> From my experience having patches go to a mailing list is a sure way to
> have them get lost. When it goes into someone's inbox, it's likely to
> get pushed down, and "out of sight, out of mind" quickly. While the ML
> is archived, it is not as use
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Daniel Berlin wrote:
be, most things support it, and there are some cool possibilities,
like gerrit (http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/). It is precisely built
I think a critical feature of any fancy code review system (or of how it
is configured for
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph S. Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:51 PM
> To: Ian Lance Taylor
> Cc: Basile STARYNKEVITCH; GCC Mailing List
> Subject: Re: increasing the number of GCC reviewers
>
>
> At the hum
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > GCC isn't really like that. Changes in one part can affect things much
> > > later on, and you really have to know why. That doesn't mean you have
> > > to understand all of the compiler, but you need to have a lot of
> > > knowledge.
> >
> > This
> > GCC isn't really like that. Changes in one part can affect things much
> > later on, and you really have to know why. That doesn't mean you have
> > to understand all of the compiler, but you need to have a lot of
> > knowledge.
>
> This is a problem with GCC's lack of modularity, not with Bas
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> be, most things support it, and there are some cool possibilities,
> like gerrit (http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/). It is precisely built
I think a critical feature of any fancy code review system (or of how it
is configured for GCC) used for a signif
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> This is precisely my point. It should be perfectly acceptable that some
>> people be authorized to approve some few patches without understanding
>> the whole of GCC, and even without knowing all of it.
>
> GCC isn't really like that. Changes
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I believe that the most useful immediate thing we could do to speed up
>> gcc development would be to move to a distributed version control
>> system.
>
> We haven't even finished the last vers
Ben Elliston wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 19:00 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> I think it's a much better idea to contact Fred (or Freda, for that matter)
>> Bloggs to ask them if they want to maintain reload. :-)
>
> Wouldn't it be Alan Smithee to maintain reload? :-)
>
> Ben
Burn, Reloa
> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers writes:
Ian> I believe that the most useful immediate thing we could do to speed up
Ian> gcc development would be to move to a distributed version control
Ian> system.
Joseph> We haven't even finished the last version control system
Joseph> transition (wwwdocs is
"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
> At the human level I suspect it would help to have people who watch for
> submissions from non-regulars (including those attached to Bugzilla) and
> help them prepare patches following all the usual conventions and get them
> reviewed (checking for copyright assignm
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I believe that the most useful immediate thing we could do to speed up
> gcc development would be to move to a distributed version control
> system.
We haven't even finished the last version control system transition
(wwwdocs is still using CVS), it'
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 21:13 +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> This is precisely my point. It should be perfectly acceptable that some
> people be authorized to approve some few patches without understanding
> the whole of GCC, and even without knowing all of it.
I sympathise with this point
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 19:00 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> I think it's a much better idea to contact Fred (or Freda, for that matter)
> Bloggs to ask them if they want to maintain reload. :-)
Wouldn't it be Alan Smithee to maintain reload? :-)
Ben
Basile STARYNKEVITCH writes:
> I am unfortunately not attending the GCC summit which happens right
> now in Montreal.
>
> But apparently, there seems to be a lack of code reviewers for
> GCC. The few people who do review code seems to have a lot of review
> in their batch queue.
>
> Perhaps could
> "Basile" == Basile STARYNKEVITCH writes:
Basile> I believe I might even become in a few years some kind of
Basile> gcc/ggc*.[ch] secondary reviewer. I don't want to become one
Basile> (being a reviewer is probably more a burden than an honor, and
Basile> probably consume a lot of time, and
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> You'll quickly find out that this makes for a fairly small set of
> people. Long term, I don't think we would do us a service if we
> relaxed any of those requirements too much.
Excellent summary.
-- Gaby
Basile,
You don't need to convince us that we need more reviewers. We all
agree on that. You simply need to suggest a reviewer for some set of
files that
- Knows that set of files very well
- Is familiar with GCC development
- Is willing to review patches and be a maintainer for those files
- H
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>>
>> This is going to sound rude, but if you don't know what reload is
>> you're not able to talk about gcc maintenance.
>
> Reload is probably in the register allocator, which indeed is in the
> backend part I know
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 10:54:06AM -0700, Adam Nemet wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
> > We need something more like "I think Fred Bloggs knows gcc well enough
> > to approve patches to reload" or "I am Fred Bloggs and I know gcc well
> > enough to approve patches to reload."
>
> And whom should su
Andrew Haley wrote:
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
FWIW, I am not taking this question personally (I don't really claim
that I could become any kind of reviewer; I believe in general that
reviewing abilities should be evaluated by others.). I just think the
set of reviewers should significantly
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> FWIW, I am not taking this question personally (I don't really claim
> that I could become any kind of reviewer; I believe in general that
> reviewing abilities should be evaluated by others.). I just think the
> set of reviewers should significantly grow.
But that ne
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Basile
STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> FWIW, I am not taking this question personally (I don't really claim that I
> could become any kind of reviewer; I believe in general that reviewing
> abilities should be evaluated by others.). I just think the set of reviewers
> should
My feeling is on the contrary that the set of people having a real
knowledge of gcc (or at least of substantial parts of it [*]) is much
bigger than the set of reviewers allowed to say OK.
That's certainly true, but there's a big difference between having real
knowledge of gcc and having enoug
FWIW, I am not taking this question personally (I don't really claim
that I could become any kind of reviewer; I believe in general that
reviewing abilities should be evaluated by others.). I just think the
set of reviewers should significantly grow.
Andrew Haley wrote:
My feeling is on
Adam Nemet wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
>> We need something more like "I think Fred Bloggs knows gcc well enough
>> to approve patches to reload" or "I am Fred Bloggs and I know gcc well
>> enough to approve patches to reload."
>
> And whom should such email be sent to? The SC is best reached
Andrew Haley writes:
> We need something more like "I think Fred Bloggs knows gcc well enough
> to approve patches to reload" or "I am Fred Bloggs and I know gcc well
> enough to approve patches to reload."
And whom should such email be sent to? The SC is best reached on gcc@
but I don't think t
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps could be discussed at the summit some way to increase the set of
>>> reviewers, i.e. the set of people able to say Ok to a patch submitted on
>>> gcc-patches@
>>
>> As I understand it, the set of review
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
PS. [note *] GCC is a huge software, so understanding well a part of
it could be enough to understand some patches.
And GCC is a huge software
I meant GCC is growing a lot. Its increase rate (about 1MLOC in less
Andrew Haley wrote:
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
Perhaps could be discussed at the summit some way to increase the set of
reviewers, i.e. the set of people able to say Ok to a patch submitted on
gcc-patches@
As I understand it, the set of reviewers allowed to say OK to a patch is
limited
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> I am unfortunately not attending the GCC summit which happens right now
> in Montreal.
>
> But apparently, there seems to be a lack of code reviewers for GCC. The
> few people who do review code seems to have a lot of review in their
> batch queue.
>
> Perhaps could
34 matches
Mail list logo
