From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25648 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2004 04:36:52 -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 25595 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 04:36:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 04:36:49 -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 <20040325043647.YGXS27519.lakemtao03.cox.net@white>; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:36:47 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B6Mbo-0005K5-00; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:36:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:36:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Robert Dewar , gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files Message-ID: <20040325043648.GA20454@white> Mail-Followup-To: Ian Lance Taylor , Robert Dewar , gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00590.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:13:17AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Robert Dewar 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