microblaze maintainer

[Joseph Myers]

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 david.holsgrove@xilinx.com 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
joseph@codesourcery.com