From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32320 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2002 02:17:36 -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 32313 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 02:17:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (66.187.233.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 02:17:35 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (vpn50-3.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.3]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g3Q2HXd27796 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:17:34 -0400 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id D428B1B965; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:17:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: which patches to review Message-ID: <20020426021725.GB30466@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020423.220943.39181580.davem@redhat.com> <3CC6D4E2.E5858735@apple.com> <3CC6E84D.2090403@cygnus.com> <20020424.103856.00478620.davem@redhat.com> <3CC8137D.6050809@cygnus.com> <20020425211324.A6519@nevyn.them.org> <20020426013611.GA30067@redhat.com> <20020425214551.A12948@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020425214551.A12948@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01064.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:45:51PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >>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? It's true. Maybe "head maintainer" is the wrong word. I don't know what the correct PC term is. You're correct, however, in saying that this isn't mentioned anywhere obvious. I agree that should be corrected. Maybe we should make a new hard rule that no further changes to MAINTAINERS will be accepted until this oversight is corrected. :-) >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. Ditto on both counts. cgf