From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26295 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2004 05:37:18 -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 26262 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2004 05:37:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2004 05:37:12 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CS7dr-0002Sc-Bu; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:37:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips Message-ID: <20041111053707.GA9394@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20041109011458.GA32113@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c618$Blat.v2.2.2$0b838560@zahav.net.il> <4190E1F8.7000203@gnu.org> <20041109184221.GB13359@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c6dd$Blat.v2.2.2$a3bf1ea0@zahav.net.il> <01c4c766$Blat.v2.2.2$ce1fd200@zahav.net.il> <200411102142.iAALgEPM095582@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <01c4c77c$Blat.v2.2.2$a7e52160@zahav.net.il> <20041110234143.GA32661@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c780$Blat.v2.2.2$bbe98080@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4c780$Blat.v2.2.2$bbe98080@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 01:54:16AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > We can't improve the code quality and design, which have suffered over > > time, if we can't make progress on patches. Indeed, the longer it > > takes for every single change to go in, the less incentive there is to > > clean anything up! I'm sure losing incentive to fix things. > > Then let's abandon the patch reviewing procedure completely and just > commit whatever each one of us global maintainers finds appropriate. > There are projects that actually work that way (Emacs, for example). > I have no problem with that, as long as it is consistent and > documented. I've suggested something along those lines (not "abandoning patch reviewing", but giving more authority to the global maintainers) several times in the past, and met with mixed responses. I hope to eventually discuss this question with the GDB Steering Committee, and get the result documented, one way or another. -- Daniel Jacobowitz