From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 04:51:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01c4c096$Blat.v2.2.2$d4f57520@zahav.net.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041101223716.GB28889@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:37:16 -0500)
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:37:16 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> I only see a point for maintainers to post RFAs when (A) they can
> not approve the patch themselves or (B) they are not
> confident/happy/sure with the approach.
I'm astonished: you are, in effect, saying that the patch review
process exists only because some meaningless bureaucratic rule does
not permit a single person to do whatever he/she wants. I kinda
thought that the patch review is the default, except when the patch
comes from an expert whom we trust to be good enough not to need that.
> We don't operate on consensus
I thought we should. If not, I don't see much sense in the machinery
that we have in place. To me, the reason for our procedures is to
produce quality code, not just to make an impression of due process.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-02 4:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-30 17:11 Andrew Cagney
2004-10-30 23:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-31 23:01 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-01 4:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-01 5:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-01 21:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-01 22:37 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-02 4:51 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2004-11-09 1:15 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-09 5:00 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-09 15:29 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09 18:42 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-10 4:33 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-10 20:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-10 21:42 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-11-10 23:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-10 23:41 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-11 0:00 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-11 5:37 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-11 5:59 ` Joel Brobecker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='01c4c096$Blat.v2.2.2$d4f57520@zahav.net.il' \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox