From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17927 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2003 20:21:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17920 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2003 20:21:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (24.131.133.249) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2003 20:21:06 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 8DE911C221; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:21:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 20:21:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: [bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu: GCC review process: how to handle external submissions] Message-ID: <20030308202134.GB32507@redhat.com> Reply-To: gdb@sourceware.org Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2 Hmmmm.... Interesting thread over in the gcc list. cgf [NOTICE: Reply-To set because I don't want to read replies to this in my inbox] ----- Forwarded message from Wolfgang Bangerth ----- From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: GCC review process: how to handle external submissions Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:40:09 -0600 (CST) This week, I got three mails on the same subject, two of which read like this: > I submitted this to gcc-patches in November, resubmitted it in December, > opened a bug report in January, wrote to gcc-bugs. I got no replies. > > I believe that this patch fixes a legitimate, reproducable bug and > follows all patch submission guidelines on the gcc website. > > Please consider applying this patch. I would appreciate a reply in any > case. and > The state of this is totally defunct. > I have tried different request strategies for a few years > and have concluded that only if I become a gcc insider > can I get even the simplest changes made. > I don't have the time, energy, or interest in that. I get such mail about once every two weeks, when I ping people who submitted PRs with patches about what happened to the patch. Gnats is full of reports with patches in them. I think we have a serious problem here. We are not only losing the contributions from these people, we are also scaring them away, and I don't think this is wise. Can we at least discuss the reasons for this, and maybe come up with suggestions about how we could improve this process? I think it would be tremendously helpful if there were someone who - could be contacted if there is a patch from somebody from outside gcc - is willing to help with small problems like missing ChangeLog entries or wrong formatting - identifies port/front-end/... maintainer that would be qualified to review the patch - will take on some mediator function between patch submitter and reviewer, if necessary - most of all: takes care that patches are not silently dropped I don't know whether this is reasonable, and even less if someone would take over this position, but I think that in this respect our present processes are inadequate. As a final note: even if I say that we have many of these cases, they may amount to 5-10 or so per month, and maybe 50-100 in gnats. Most of these would probably be easy to review, if just someone cared -- the mail from which I took the first quote contains everthing the patch submission guidelines ask for, and did so back the first time it was submitted; the patch is actually only two lines long; yet it was ignored 3 times. Regards Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu ----- End forwarded message -----