From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8199 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2004 18:17:12 -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 8191 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 18:17:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 18:17:11 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2PIHAWA028216 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:17:10 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2PIHAj05397; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:17:10 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (coe.boston.redhat.com [172.16.65.80]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2PIHA53000737; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:17:10 -0500 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 6087640010E; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:17:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:17:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files Message-ID: <20040325181709.GA10300@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: 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> <406279E4.3090903@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <406279E4.3090903@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00626.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:19:16AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote: >Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>I want to note that this is only partially true. In fact there are a >>number of people who are paid to work on gdb. > >Yes, but they aren't necessarily paid to work for the same goals as >FSF maintenance. If I am working for company X which wants a reliable >GDB for target Y, we may have zero interest in a patch that does not >promote this goal. If someone has allowed themselves to be listed as a maintainer of a particular part of gdb they have a responsibility to review patches regardless of whether they are specifically paid to do so or not. To act in any other way would be disingenuous. It is true, of course, that there may be work constraints which impact the amount of time available for someone to review patches but if someone is not reviewing patches because they do not coincide with their company's current interests then they really shouldn't be professing to act as a maintainer. IMO.