This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Subsystem maintainers
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:22:58 +0000
- Subject: Subsystem maintainers
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1409232040060 dot 8132 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1409301439570 dot 15186 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <542AC26E dot 5070906 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 10:40 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Ping. This patch
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-09/msg00544.html> is pending
> > review.
>
> Who do we expect to review these patches? There is a considerable amount of
> work required to review soft-fp, and at present I find it hard to be motivated
> for anything but hard float.
(With reference to
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-09/msg00679.html>.)
Perhaps we should have subsystem maintainers for more areas than just
architecture ports, where the number of people interested in a particular
area is limited? The principle would be that changes by those people in
those areas are presumed to have consensus and not need someone else to
review them, in the absence of any actual objections that show the absence
of consensus (but it would still be the case that anyone could express
their concerns about such a change, or a change in such an area could
reach consensus through review by people other than the subsystem
maintainers, especially when it's just part of a global change, just as
today with architecture changes).
I'd be willing to be a subsystem maintainer in this sense for soft-fp and
the conform/ tests.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com