On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Have you ever posted the patch, or only made it available via the website? > > Have you not seen the last 3 years of patches to gcc-patches? They're > prefixed by [trans-mem]. Perhaps you're filtering them out. > >> Just scanning >> http://quesejoda.com/redhat/tm-branch-diffs-from-trunk-at-180744/compiler >> I see several issue that make me doubt it was reviewed by yourself, much >> less by anyone else. And I think branch merges aren't really different >> from anything else, patches go to gcc-patches@ are reviewed, acked, and >> checked in. > > I am not lead on this. All the patches have been approved by Richard > Henderson. Your question makes me doubt that you have read gcc-patches for > the past three years. > >> For instance, there are new files gcc/c-pretty-print.c or >> ipa-type-escape.c, gcc/c.opt is moved meanwhile to gcc/c-family. All >> these files aren't mentioned in the ChangeLog. At this point I simply >> stopped looking carefully at the diff myself, because clearly nobody else >> did. No wonder it's 800k. I don't think this is in a reviewable state > > That was a minor rsync hiccup this morning that clobbered the previous patch > that was on the website. The aforementioned files got picked up incorrectly > by the svn merge. Hit reload on your browser, or better yet... download the > branch. > >> right now. It might simply be a misapplied merge, or a broken diff, but >> whatever it is, I'd expect at least reviewable patches before considering >> a merge. > > Reviewable patches as in what goes in gcc-patches? Or do you want something > else?
Reviewable branch merge patch(es). You can't expect everyone to follow all development branches that may or may not end up being merged. Richard.
