This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Syncing platform-specific bits with generic code (was: Mark inputsbeing ZERO as unlikely __mul in powerpc)
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, rsa at us dot ibm dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:54:07 -0500
- Subject: Re: Syncing platform-specific bits with generic code (was: Mark inputsbeing ZERO as unlikely __mul in powerpc)
- References: <CAAHN_R2=QYmJ=ntkDaZB7i0PVbneL4KxKO9Tqi97QmemcEdqyw@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/20/2013 11:50 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 20 February 2013 21:59, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> If you want you can kick-off a question regarding concensus:
>> "If performance is not degraded, can patches that synchronize
>> machine copies of code with generic copies of code be committed
>> without review?"
>
> That would definitely be more convenient. In fact, I was wondering if
> we could follow the gdb-style definition of Obvious Changes:
>
> "All maintainers listed in this file, including the Write After Approval
> developers, are allowed to check in obvious fixes.
I'm confused. Our MAINTAINER's page already says that?
"Write after Consensus and/or approval from machine maintainer..."
Where Consensus is a link to the Consensus page.
> The above text seems to cover most of the bits we already have in the
> Consensus wiki page. In addition, things like fixing trivial build
> warnings also get included.
If something is missing form the Consensus page then we need to gather
consensus and add it?
Cheers,
Carlos.