From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12533 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2004 23:31:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12472 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 23:31:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 23:31:36 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.154.117]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.5-GR) with ESMTP id DBS20464 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 11 Nov 2004 01:30:50 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:31:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Mark Kettenis Message-ID: <01c4c77c$Blat.v2.2.2$a7e52160@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: cagney@gnu.org, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200411102142.iAALgEPM095582@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message from Mark Kettenis on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:42:14 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <01c4bed6$Blat.v2.2.2$fa231b20@zahav.net.il> <41856ECA.2060701@gnu.org> <01c4bfcd$Blat.v2.2.2$299ef260@zahav.net.il> <20041101051257.GA11134@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c057$Blat.v2.2.2$4cacd760@zahav.net.il> <20041101223716.GB28889@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c096$Blat.v2.2.2$d4f57520@zahav.net.il> <20041109011458.GA32113@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c618$Blat.v2.2.2$0b838560@zahav.net.il> <4190E1F8.7000203@gnu.org> <20041109184221.GB13359@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c6dd$Blat.v2.2.2$a3bf1ea0@zahav.net.il> <01c4c766$Blat.v2.2.2$ce1fd200@zahav.net.il> <200411102142.iAALgEPM095582@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:42:14 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: cagney@gnu.org, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > Sorry, but I have to disagree here. For the (unfortunately) limited > number of people that contribute several patches in a week this is a > significant problem. When I'm working on a particular area I often > find myself making multiple changes to the same file. If I have to > post a patch and wait a week before I can check it in, I have two > options: > > 1. Juggle with the patches for a week, risking an accidental commit of > stuff belonging to a different patch to the same file, or dropping > a patch completely in the process. > > 2. Postpone further work on that part of GDB until the week is over > and the patch has been committed. > > Neither option is good for GDB. That might be tough, but we all do precisely that when the file in question is not in our maintainership area. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that you should post an RFA in x86 files, as you are the area maintainer for those. I'm talking about files for which there's no area maintainer. The idea being that we are all collectively responsible for such files, so the patch should be approved collectively rather than unilaterally. Yes, it slows down the development a bit, but I don't think the patch rate is our most important goal. The rate is important, but code quality and clean design are IMHO more important.