Re: MAINTAINERS file updated with ping results

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:01:13AM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> If I'm reading the descriptions right, it's not meaningful to list
> someone as both a global maintainer and as an authorized committer;
> the former has the rights of the latter.  But of the entries now in
> "Authorized Committers", many belong to people who are also global
> maintainers.
> 
> To be clear: I think it's very important that people are given credit
> for their contributions; it's one of my primary motivations in working
> on Free software.  So if people feel that having their names listed in
> both places is valuable in being recognized for their work, I don't
> object.  My point is that, as far as our procedures are concerned, it
> seems redundant.
> 
> So if the general sense is that the first purpose of gdb/MAINTAINERS
> is to describe our permissions and responsibilities, then it should be
> trimmed.

I think that it still has some value: it lets us keep track of the
current situation if a responsible maintainer is later added.  Beyond
that I've got no opinion.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery