From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31725 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2004 16:14:39 -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 31715 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2004 16:14:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2004 16:14:36 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP id <20040323161436.XTGF27519.lakemtao03.cox.net@white>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:14:36 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B5oY0-0004bk-00; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:14:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:14:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Robert Dewar Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdbheads@gnu.org Subject: Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files Message-ID: <20040323161436.GA17688@white> Mail-Followup-To: Robert Dewar , 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> <20040323130900.GA17339@white> <40605C9F.2050700@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40605C9F.2050700@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00522.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:49:51AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote: > Bob Rossi wrote: > > >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. > > I don't see any fundamental problem here. I understand that you might not see it as a problem. I do. I am only asking that this issue be looked at. The point I am trying to make is that if the steering committee could solve a simple problem like, "the time it takes to review a small patch", maybe it could solve the problem of reviewing a slightly larger patch. By induction, all patches could be reviewed faster. How long should it take for a 500 line patch to be reviewed? 1 week? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? How about a large patch? Do you see 6 months as acceptable? What is acceptable? Bob Rossi