From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20679 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2005 16:01:15 -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 20515 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2005 16:00:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Feb 2005 16:00:56 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1D1588-0006iJ-Bi; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:00:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Mark up add_com, add_info and add_prefix_cmd Message-ID: <20050215160051.GA25376@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <421219BE.3060509@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <421219BE.3060509@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > FYI, > committed, > Andrew Andrew, both Eli and I have asked you to stop doing committing these patches. If you intend to continue ignoring the concerns of other GDB maintainers, I will ask the GDB steering committee to temporarily remove your write privileges and see if that convinces you to discuss your concerns in a civilized fashion. MAINTAINERS has this to say: An "obvious fix" means that there is no possibility that anyone will disagree with the change. A good mental test is "will the person who hates my work the most be able to find fault with the change" - if so, then it's not obvious and needs to be posted first. :-) Something like changing or bypassing an interface is _not_ an obvious fix, since such a change without discussion will result in instantaneous and loud complaints. I understand that you are checking these in under the "Global Maintainers" mandate rather than the "Obvious Fix" mandate. But the same principle applies. If a change results in instantaneous and loud complaints, IT SHOULD NOT BE CHECKED IN WITHOUT DISCUSSION. I find your behavior painfully ironic coming from a maintainer who steadfastly supported the position that global maintainers needed to ask for approval. You're demonstrating why that convention existed. If you, or your employer, desperately need an internationalized version of GDB 6.4, then please do it locally instead of abusing the FSF repository in this fashion. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC