Re: Rewriting the type system

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>]

> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:50:16 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>
> 
> Both of you are in the wrong here.  Jim, you know as well as anyone
> that the C++ symbol handling parts of GDB are not so neatly partitioned
> that you can review symbol patches without knowing more than a bit about
> C++, and Dan, you should be able to admit mistakes in your patches, fix
> them and resubmit, rather than flaming the reviewer of the patch.
> 
> There is plenty of room to criticize both maintainer responsiveness
> and patch quality without turning it into a spitting match, and I'm
> disappointed to see the development process sink to this level.

I agree 110%.

Exchanging accusations will get us nowehere; and if Dan feels his
patches are consistently ignored, then something is not right in the
process of reviewing those patches and providing relevant feedback
back to Dan.

In particular, if there are aspects in Dan's (or anybody else's) code
that the maintainer wants changed, then those aspects should be
pointed out.  I know I had such comments on my submissions from time
to time, and I'm sure everyone else had as well.

But leaving patches unreviwed or the person who submitted them in an
uncertain state is something that I think should be avoided at all
costs.