Re: [PULL REQUEST] Patches for alpha port

[Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>]

So, ports folk, what is to be the way of it for things like this?

Our convention as I understand it now is that each arch in ports has one
or more individuals designated as responsible.  All such people are
responsible both for the cardinal copyright rituals, and for general
quality and appropriateness-for-GNU standards of the code in their
bailiwick.  These folks either can push to sourceware git themselves, or
their say-so is enough for a generally-empowered ports maintainer to
commit/pull changes to their port(s).  (I'm not sure who is on that
latter list now, maybe just Daniel?)

It's my feeling that we should not get into the slippery slope of
merging individual changes for ports that are otherwise abandoned.
That is, if there is no person responsible (or even responsive! :-)
for a given port any more, then before you can get a change merged in
for that port, you have to get a person to be responsible for the port.
Of course, the obvious approach is to become that person yourself.

I have verified Aurelien's copyright assignment status for glibc.
Beyond that, I don't myself have enough memories of Aurelien in GNU
contexts to personally vouch for judgment on copyright/GNU correctness
issues.  (My current impressions are all positive, just all vague.)
If Aurelien wants to be responsible for alpha in libc-ports and the
consensus likes the idea, it certainly sounds nice to me.

I haven't reviewed these particular changes even for GNUish smell test
or glibc wisdom, let alone tried to grok any Alpha issues.


Thanks,
Roland