Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Jeff Law writes: >> We don't need to change the final approval step being from a >> maintainer to be able to spread the workload. > Amen. There's a few folks doing this right now outside their areas of > official maintainership and those comments are always very helpful to >

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 08/05/2016 10:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: I believe that Diego tried setting up an alternative patch review system using Reitveld, but it did not catch on. And there were some before that :-) For Go development I have been using Gerrit, an instance hosted at Google

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

I'm not going to reply to any specific points, but I do want to comment that I've come to believe that e-mail based patch review is a problem. Unfortunately, I do not foresee the GCC maintainers moving away from it. I believe that Diego tried setting up an alternative patch review system using

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 5 August 2016 at 15:06, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:12:36PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> This is a problem throughout GCC. We have a single C++ maintainer, a >> single part-time C maintainer, none? for libiberty, no regular >>

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 08/04/2016 04:49 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Global Reviewers are welcome to review OpenACC/OpenMP/offloading patches. But that doesn't help if that's then not happening in reality. (With the exception of Bernd, who then did review such patches for a while, but also seems to have stopped with

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 08/04/2016 04:49 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Global Reviewers are welcome to review OpenACC/OpenMP/offloading patches. But that doesn't help if that's then not happening in reality. (With the exception of Bernd, who then did review such patches for a while, but also seems to have stopped with

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 08/05/2016 06:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 4 August 2016 at 21:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: d) Delegate hierarchically. Module owners should seek and delegate to people with svn-write powers and ask for reviews in exchange of reviews. Advantages: No loss in quality, distribute work,

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:12:36PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 04/08/16 15:49, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >I suppose, if I weren't paid for paid for this, I would have run away > >long ago, and would have looked for another project to contribute to. > >:-( > > You are a *paid* developer

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 21:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > d) Delegate hierarchically. Module owners should seek and delegate to people > with svn-write powers and ask for reviews in exchange of reviews. > > Advantages: No loss in quality, distribute work, creates an economy of > reviews. > >

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 5 August 2016 at 12:16, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > - a "2-week rule"; if a patch by a reviewer goes unreviewed for 2 > weeks, the reviewer can commit it without review. A bit like your > option a). > > > The 2-week rule, in particular, came about due to frustration

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > At least half of the global reviewers in MAINTAINERS never review any > patches. Most of them are not active any more and presumably do not read GCC > emails. > > I'm not sure how to address this problem, but

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 22:01, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: >> I don't see how that helps. Neither my message nor Thomas's is a >> criticism of people. The question is how to get more people to help >> and how to improve the situation. For

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > Another question is how to help existing maintainers such that they > are more motivated to review patches. Is it a lack of time? lack of > Interest in the project? do patches simply fall through the cracks? is > it a dead-lock of people waiting

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > I don't see how that helps. Neither my message nor Thomas's is a > criticism of people. The question is how to get more people to help > and how to improve the situation. For sure, everybody is doing the > best that they can with the time that

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 21:34, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 4 August 2016 at 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: >> Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: >> >>> none? for libiberty, no regular maintainer for build machinery, >> >> Perhaps this is a sign

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: > Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > >> none? for libiberty, no regular maintainer for build machinery, > > Perhaps this is a sign that I should step down as maintainers for those? I don't see how that helps. Neither

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > none? for libiberty, no regular maintainer for build machinery, Perhaps this is a sign that I should step down as maintainers for those?

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 04/08/16 15:49, Thomas Schwinge wrote: I suppose, if I weren't paid for paid for this, I would have run away long ago, and would have looked for another project to contribute to. :-( You are a *paid* developer for one of the most active companies in the GCC community. Imagine how it feels