Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:07:31 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 161499] [libstdc++] [patch] Use FreeBSD's atomic.h if no cpu-specific code is available Message-ID: <bug-161499-8-Q1nh4ISruU@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-161499-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-161499-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D161499 --- Comment #4 from Mark Linimon <linimon@FreeBSD.org> --- Every once in a while various committers go through to try to clean up the stale PRs. (I have spent time doing that; see below.) It's just necessary work that Someone (TM) needs to do. There are various theories of how to go about this. One that I particularly *dis*like is simply to close ones that are older than N months. My feeling= is that it just frustrates submitters. In addition, some of the open bugs are still valid. Of course we still need to figure out a methodology to flag PRs for applicability and non-staleness. OTOH I myself am not in a position to wor= k on that at this time. The reason I am addressing your reply is that IMVHO it is counter-productiv= e.=20 I have received similar replies when I have attempted to triage old PRs in = the past. It has tended to demotivate me to continue doing that, and working through PRs is frustrating enough as it is. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-161499-8-Q1nh4ISruU>