Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

[Eli, I apologize for the delay in responding; I didn't mean to drop
this conversation on the floor, but I haven't had much time for GDB
lately.]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 06:44:48AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:37:16 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > I only see a point for maintainers to post RFAs when (A) they can
> > not approve the patch themselves or (B) they are not
> > confident/happy/sure with the approach.
> 
> I'm astonished: you are, in effect, saying that the patch review
> process exists only because some meaningless bureaucratic rule does
> not permit a single person to do whatever he/she wants.  I kinda
> thought that the patch review is the default, except when the patch
> comes from an expert whom we trust to be good enough not to need that.

I'm certainly not trying to say that!  But self-review seems like a
reasonable practice to me and my experience reading gdb-patches shows
it to be a pretty common one.  Most patches are self-approved.  Some
maintainers tend to post patches to areas without specific maintainers
as RFA's; others don't.

The other thing experience tells me is that patches posted as an RFA,
by someone who could self-approve it, only very rarely get reviewed.
Often they sit for ages.

> > We don't operate on consensus
> 
> I thought we should.  If not, I don't see much sense in the machinery
> that we have in place.  To me, the reason for our procedures is to
> produce quality code, not just to make an impression of due process.

Again, I feel disconnected.  I agree with your premises but not your
conclusions.  If there is no expert in the area, who will know more
about the code than the global maintainers generally, why ask for
review?  I assume that all of the active maintainers can handle coding
style, and general "is this a gross hack" checks, on their own.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz