Subsystem maintainers

[Joseph S. Myers]

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