From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26282 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2004 07:59:07 -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 26236 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 07:58:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 07:58:58 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 80CD147D62; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:58:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: ian@airs.com, dewar@gnat.com, gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files Message-ID: <20040325075858.GT1104@gnat.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> <20040325043648.GA20454@white> <20040325055925.GS1104@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00601.txt.bz2 > If you feel that your contributions are reviewed in reasonable time, > _you_ don't need to complain or ask for better response times. > > But other contributors felt differently. We didn't just invent that, > there are threads in the archives that show that this did in fact > happen. As long as any of the people who contribute code feel that > some of their contributions take too long to review, we as maintainers > need to do some soul searching to find ways to avoid such feelings. Right. I guess I wasn't clear in my previous message, sorry. I am not saying that everything is fine. I am just reacting to the idea of forcing maintainers to review within a hard timeframe each patch that touches some code they maintain. At least that's what I understood from Bob's message. I also have some patches that have been sitting unreviewed for a long time. I would sure like to see the process become better, and I think we can improve. But I think the solution to this problem lies in better teamwork, not in asking maintainer to review "their" patch within a short timeframe or else quit. I say "their patch" because right now, we have areas of code where only one or two maintainers can do reviews, and that to me is the real problem, and probably the source of many of the delayed patches. That's why I was in favor of the proposal that asked that global maintainers be allowed to review and approve patches anywhere. GCC does it, AFAIK. I think this is going to help GDB in that respect. Or does anybody have any evidence of the contrary? -- Joel