From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24264 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2004 14:21:06 -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 24253 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 14:21:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 14:21:02 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP id <20040325142102.YKRC13694.lakemtao02.cox.net@white>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:21:02 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B6VjD-0005XX-00; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:21:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:21:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files Message-ID: <20040325142103.GA21226@white> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Eli Zaretskii , gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20040325075858.GT1104@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040325075858.GT1104@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00611.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:58:58PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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. Please don't get me wrong. I don't think there should be a hard time limit. I was just hoping to spark some interest in the community over the example I am having with submitting a small patch. Honestly, since the patch didn't make 6.1, I probably won't even start integrating the functionality into CGDB for several months. So getting this particular patch reviewed "quick" is not even an issue to me. However, if I was to start contributing to GDB on a regular basis, and patches took this long to review, I would probably find other things of interest to work on. > 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? With my limited knowledge it seems like that would be a good idea. I wonder if anyone thinks it is a bad idea? Bob Rossi