From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30902 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2004 00:00:55 -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 30842 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2004 00:00:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2004 00:00:46 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.154.117]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id DWA03430 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:00:01 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-ID: <01c4c780$Blat.v2.2.2$bbe98080@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20041110234143.GA32661@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:41:44 -0500) Subject: Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <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$ce1fd200@zahav.net.il> <200411102142.iAALgEPM095582@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <01c4c77c$Blat.v2.2.2$a7e52160@zahav.net.il> <20041110234143.GA32661@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:41:44 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Mark Kettenis , cagney@gnu.org, > gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > That might be tough, but we all do precisely that when the file in > > question is not in our maintainership area. > > You've said that quite a few times now :-) But this isn't a documented > policy, and it doesn't seem to be a widely followed one, either. What Andrew did isn't documented, either. > We can't improve the code quality and design, which have suffered over > time, if we can't make progress on patches. Indeed, the longer it > takes for every single change to go in, the less incentive there is to > clean anything up! I'm sure losing incentive to fix things. Then let's abandon the patch reviewing procedure completely and just commit whatever each one of us global maintainers finds appropriate. There are projects that actually work that way (Emacs, for example). I have no problem with that, as long as it is consistent and documented.