Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please read the web page:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
>
> This assumes a stable access to the 'net so that such information can
> be extracted when one is reading the documentation. Which isn't
> always the case for everyone. URL's sh
Please read the web page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
This assumes a stable access to the 'net so that such information can
be extracted when one is reading the documentation. Which isn't
always the case for everyone. URL's shouldn't point to important
information of this type in a
On Saturday 14 January 2006 02:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> But this seems very awkward for people who only send a patch ones in a
> blue moon;
Why? There are lots of people who only send a few patches per year
and they all know how to contribute them.
> and not much good info on that either, t
On Jan 13, 2006, at 8:18 PM, Alfred M.. Szmidt wrote:
Thanks, will do so later today.
But this seems very awkward for people who only send a patch ones in a
blue moon; and not much good info on that either, the manual just says
`report bugs to the bugtracker'; more or less.
Please read the w
The usual process is that you post them to the gcc-patches mailing
list for review. And if they are approved, you can commit then or
you can ask someone to commit them for you. As far as I can tell,
you have never posted the patches. At least, there is no sign of
that in the PR au
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:58:14AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Saturday 14 January 2006 01:42, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Could someone check the bugs that depend on #21824? They have been
> > pending for several months now with no activity, and it is kinda bad
> > karma not having GCC wor
On Saturday 14 January 2006 01:42, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Could someone check the bugs that depend on #21824? They have been
> pending for several months now with no activity, and it is kinda bad
> karma not having GCC working on the GNU system.
The usual process is that you post them to the g
