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, 2006-06-15 at 22:36 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 08 June 2006 15:34, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps we should do something about this problem. There are still many
> committers. Take myself for example, I have (of course) my own overlay, and
> sometimes I must confess that I just fix these kinds of bugs for myself, add
> it to my overlay and forget about it. Perhaps if it were easier to fix these
> things in tree, it would be better for gentoo. I do not mean to say that it
> should become a free-for-all, but fixing these kinds of issues is beneficial.

If *any* developer came to us with a patch for GCC 4.1.1 and one of our
games and asks if they can fix it, I know for a fact that I will
definitely say yes.  I'm pretty sure none of the other guys would object
to it, either.

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