On 8 June 2010 00:21, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 06/07/2010 11:40 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> I think a big way of solving this is through a non technical solution >> of having a person who just go through patches and mentors the "non >> regular" developers. >> > The only point I want to stress again, or maybe clarify, is that if a > *person* is going to do that, I expect the "entity" to behave like a > person, thus intelligently, thus not sending out standardized requests > about patches which obviously have been committed already, as any > *human* can quickly understand looking at gcc-cvs, svn, whatever. If you > tell me that it would be a rather stressful job, I agree, and that's why > I think we should find a way to automate it, assuming it's a real issue > to somebody.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00667.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00670.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00681.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00637.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00666.html All those from a single recent thread in the gcc@ list. Not a place where I would expect to find people that have given up on contributing to GCC. I think you could obtain a more representative sample if you asked in llvmdev or cfe-dev. That said, I don't think pinging patches (or even faster reviews) would solve the lack of GCC contributors. Potential contributors actually give up much earlier. Perhaps not an issue for anyone that is already a GCC developer, and even less of an issue if they are paid to do so (at least until their boss or their clients put them to work on some other free compiler or libc++ library). But perhaps the lack of contributors is an issue for the GCC project as a whole. Cheers, Manuel
