From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9355 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2005 15:07:31 -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 8092 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2005 15:07:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao07.cox.net) (68.230.240.32) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Feb 2005 15:07:22 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050215150721.CYBW5499.lakermmtao07.cox.net@white>; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:07:21 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1D14IN-000192-00; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:07:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:51:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Mark up add_cmd Message-ID: <20050215150722.GA4380@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <4210E94F.6010505@gnu.org> <01c512e1$Blat.v2.4$149cf760@zahav.net.il> <421156FB.70907@gnu.org> <01c5131a$Blat.v2.4$331ad0c0@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c5131a$Blat.v2.4$331ad0c0@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:57:15 -0500 > > From: Andrew Cagney > > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > It's taken us three months to get through files a-c, simple math tells > > us that at that rate we'll finish sometime on '07. I don't think so. > > I don't know why it took so long, but it certainly isn't because of > the time it took to review the patch and post the results. IIRC, none > of the reviews was ever posted more than a few days after the RFA, > usually only hours since the RFA was received. > > So this argument cannot possibly justify your decision to bypass the > normal procedures. The problem at hand is beyond me, but below is something that does interest me. Well, if it is because of long patch review times, this problem needs to be fixed! Not everyone can just apply patches without getting reviewed. For instance, my MI patch has been sitting for about 6 weeks on gdb-patches, and that's not the first patch I've had there. I had a patch there for 3 months before. Basically, the GDB patch procedure has been successful at just about stopping me from doing what I need to do. For some odd reason, I'm very patient, and am willing to wait months to get what I need done. I don't think most developers are willing to wait this long. Also, I think it could honestly be years before I get done what I need to get done. The procedure needs to change to speed things up! I remember a while back, when this problem was supposed to be addressed. What ever happened to the committee that was supposed to address such problems? I was very hopeful that the committee was going to fix things, I don't even know if everyone was ever even contacted. Thanks, Bob Rossi