From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16646 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2006 19:15:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 16638 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2006 19:15:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:15:25 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F6YJ9-0007Ft-NC for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:15:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:15:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file updated with ping results Message-ID: <20060207191523.GA27786@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060207154246.GA20262@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0602071101t11fc941dqf840c6975b2c4cfd@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0602071101t11fc941dqf840c6975b2c4cfd@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00151.txt.bz2 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