This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: microblaze maintainer
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:42:54 +0000
- Subject: Re: microblaze maintainer
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150806065750 dot GX26572 at vapier> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508061213480 dot 31601 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150806155850 dot GD30077 at vapier>
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2015 12:14, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > my microblaze patch bounced because firstname.lastname@example.org is not a
> > > valid address (anymore). does that mean the arch is orphaned ?
> > Probably. If the thread cancellation changes go in and no-one steps up to
> > do the microblaze / sh versions of those changes, we may need to deprecate
> > and then remove those architectures as unmaintained.
> for orphaned arches, should we just push after a while if no one reviews ?
> i.e. should we treat it like common code (requiring review) or like sysdep
> code (the maintainer verifies & pushes).
For routine bug fixes, cleanups, fixes for changes to generic code or
otherwise for consistency with other architectures and fixes for broken
build, I'd be happy to treat silence as consensus in the case of orphaned
architectures. For more substantial changes including any new optimized
functions, I think we should expect actual review or the submitter
stepping forward as a new architecture maintainer and getting consensus
for that role.
Joseph S. Myers