This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Subsystem maintainers
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 21:44:45 +0200
- Subject: Re: 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> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1410071615260 dot 28196 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <54342BE2 dot 6000006 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:07 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 10/07/2014 12:22 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > 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 agree. We should have some kind of subsystem maintainers to simplify
> the process of finding an expert to review your patch, and simplifying
> the work for the subsystem maintainer.
>
> > I'd be willing to be a subsystem maintainer in this sense for soft-fp and
> > the conform/ tests.
>
> We should see consensus on the idea of subsystem maintainers.
>
> I'd like to see others comment that they are OK with the idea.
This would be fine with me. If we have areas of glibc where only a few
people (or, 1 person) are knowledgeable enough to maintain it, then we
can as well be honest about it :)