Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:13:17AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:
> 
> > 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. This is after all a volunteer
> > project and people have limited time to review patches, as they have
> > limited time for anything they do on the project. Of course we all
> > understand that it is frustrating when it takes a while for a patch
> > to be approved, but there is no one who can order someone else to
> > spend more time on this. Now perhaps more people should have approval
> > authority, but that of course has its own draw backs in terms of
> > keeping the entire project under control. There is always a
> > fundamental trade off between reliability/stability/control and
> > adding nice new features.
> 
> The fundamental problem is that in order for a volunteer project to
> succeed, it is essential to pay close attention to the care and
> feeding of volunteers.  Otherwise, the project eventually comes to
> lack any volunteers.
> 
> I've already described my views at some length here:
>     http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gdbheads/2004-01/msg00032.html
> 
> As I said in that message: "patch review is the most important aspect
> of being a GNU maintainer."

I completely agree with Ian here.  So the question is, 
is patch review the most important aspect of being a GNU GDB maintainer?

How many GDB maintainers would answer yes to this?

Bob Rossi