Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 13:42 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 08/06/06, Matteo Azzali <matte.az@××××××.it> wrote:
> > Hum, maybe my little english is not good to explain my thoughts.....
> >
> > I already have a /usr/local/portage overlay  bigger than 500Kb.
>
> I can beat that, try 23MB :-/
>
> Anyway, back to your point - yes, there are lots of bugs with patches
> attached that aren't being added to the main tree. And there are lots
> of bugs where the ebuild or fix is ending up in an overlay rather than
> the main tree. It's getting complicated to keep track - all I can
> really advise is that if you'd like to see fixes and ebuilds being
> added to the main tree, then become a developer and start doing it
> (although it is complex for something like gcc compile fixes which are
> spread across packages owned by multiple developers who will get upset
> if you touch their package).

Actually, this isn't exactly true.  In the case of a compile fix, such
as this, the developer is aware of the issue, and gcc-porting@ is on the
bug, too, as CC, usually.  If someone from gcc-porting were to go around
committing patches to my ebuilds, I know I wouldn't mind.  It would
reduce my workload greatly, especially as they're the experts on what is
and isn't allowed in gcc 4.1, versus myself, who is a gcc 4.1
amateur.  ;]

The truth is that there's tens of thousands of possible patch-providers
(users) and only ~300 people with commit rights.  Even fewer when you
consider that the package in question may have a single maintainer, or
only a small team.  Most of the packages that are blocking that bug are
games.  We're working on them, but there's a small group of us and a
very large number of packages, many of which are very poorly coded and
require a lot of work and testing.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux