On Nov 18, 2007 8:32 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > 2. But *I will not work on it* now (or ask help from others) if it is *a > > priori* not acceptable for stage 3. > > As I parse your sentence, you were asking if your patch would be > automatically (a priori) rejected for stage3. If I say it may be > acceptable, that means the rejection is not presumptively automatic. > Therefore IMHO, I answered your question in an affirmative way.
The way I read your answer, you were asking for more than the "risky" stuff. A simple yes or no would have been sufficient. > OTOH, I don't think final acceptance of your patch is guaranteed either, > without the same analysis we ask of any contributor. I don't understand why you keep repeating this. I'm not stupid, I'm not exactly new to contributing to gcc (been working on it for more than 7 years, in fact), and I never asked for special treatment. I know what I have to do to make a patch acceptable. But, again, approval of the patch was not what I was asking for. Gr. Steven
