From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21061 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2004 13:09:10 -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 21033 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2004 13:09:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao04.cox.net) (68.1.17.241) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2004 13:09:03 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakemtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP id <20040323130903.WVDM1670.lakemtao04.cox.net@white>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:09:03 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B5leO-0004WP-00; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:09:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:09:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdbheads@gnu.org Subject: A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files Message-ID: <20040323130900.GA17339@white> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdbheads@gnu.org References: <20040225040059.GB19094@white> <16456.65451.461753.66554@localhost.redhat.com> <20040306155700.GA9439@white> <20040311132508.GA2504@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040311132508.GA2504@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00513.txt.bz2 Hi All, It has taken about 1 month to get a 500 line patch reviewed. And the review process is not over yet. Personally, I think we should use this patch as a case study to prove the inherent problems that GDB has. It is obvious to me that GDB is almost a dead project when it comes to receiving patches from the outside world. Here is the ridiculous time table seen for this trivial patch. 02-24: Posted 02-25 02-26: Andrew responded, passed buck to Elena, should have To:ed Elena :-( 02-27: Question about when response would be 02-28: 02-29: 03-01: Above post 03-01: 03-02: I acknowledged the response. 03-03: Eli Zaretskii thinks waiting a week to ping on a patch isn't bad. ( I happen to think it is bad ) 03-05: Patch initially reviewed by Elana Zannoni ( great job too ) 03-05: Jason Molenda made some useful comments ( thanks Jason ) 03-06: I respond the next day to Elena's questions, ready to move forward. (no response) 03-11: I respond a week later. (no response) 03-23: I write an Email to gdb-heads, hoping to show that there is a real problem in the GDB community. Now, I refuse to keep sending in an Email every week to get my patch resolved. That gives me the impression that GDB is not competent in receiving patches and processing them. I don't really blame this on anyone in particular, but I blame the problem on everyone. I see that there is an effort in the correct direction to change this, but what could we do to fix this particular case, since this would basically be fixing "the small patch" case. Does GDB look at patches in a FIFO order? Smallest Job First order? The developer who wines and complains the most about their patch order? I hope I have not offended anyone here, since honestly, each of the GDB people I have talked to has done a great job helping me out. It's just the system on a whole that seems to be lacking. Thanks, Bob Rossi