Re: which patches to review

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:36:11PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:13:24PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 10:32:29AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> > From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
> >> >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:15:57 -0400
> >> >
> >> >   Here, you're mistaken.
> >> >   
> >> >He isn't %100 wrong.  I've been asked repeatedly to basically
> >> >multi-arch the Sparc targets out the wazoo to get the Linux
> >> >Sparc bits in.
> >> 
> >> One of GDB's overriding objectives it to get everything multi-arch.  To 
> >> that end:
> >> 
> >> Post 5.0, every new architecture has to be mult-arched
> >> Post 5.1, every addition to an existing architecture has to be mult-arch 
> >> enabled
> >> 
> >> As acceptence criteria, they are simple and transparent.  I don't think 
> >> me stiching up some sort of cosy deal where you were some how excempted 
> >> from this would go down very well :-)
> >
> >Again with due respect, I've got to object to the point of view in this
> >message.  I wouldn't say that becoming multi-arch is "one of GDB's
> >overriding objectives".  It's something that we all agree would be good
> >for GDB; it's something that I agree with you should happen before our
> >next release, which is not scheduled for at least four months IIRC. 
> >But if it is an "overriding objective", it's only so for you.  My
> >overriding objective is for GDB to improve.
> 
> Hmm.  I was under the impression that 1) Andrew was the head maintainer
> for gdb

If so, this isn't said anywhere.  It certainly may be true; all I know
is that he's a blanket write maintainer and the release manager for the
last several releases.  If the GDB projects has a single head
maintainer, perhaps that should be listed in gdb/MAINTAINERS somewhere?

>         and, so, got to specify little things like "overriding
> directions" for gdb, and 

To the extent of excluding large contributions that don't seem to
conflict in any substantial way with his design improvements?

>                           2) multiarching targets was an improvement.

Sure it is.  So are David's SPARC/Linux patches, and they're a much
more concrete one to users.  I was just objecting to the one
"obviously" trumping with the other.

I'm going to shut up now; I've no desire for a protacted argument and
I've foolishly walked into the middle of one.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer