From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18607 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2002 02:44:05 -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 18598 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 02:44:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 02:44:04 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75433D1A; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:43:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CC2276D.5060702@cygnus.com> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:44:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: thorpej@wasabisystems.com Cc: "David S. Miller" , msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Sparc/Linux fixes part 1 References: <20020419.190949.100077712.davem@redhat.com> <3CC0D67F.5060504@cygnus.com> <20020419.194417.101826241.davem@redhat.com> <20020420.185217.124826922.davem@redhat.com> <20020420191313.B1627@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00705.txt.bz2 > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:52:17PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > On another topic, I have like 10 or so RFAs pending, and nobody > > provides any feedback. Yet someone else submits a patch after all of > > mine and it gets an RFA quite quickly. It's not like I'm submitting > > jumbo patches or anything, what gives? > > Hm. The sparc target is currently listed as maintainer-less. I have a > similar dilemma with the alpha target ... who do I ask approval from if > I'm not doing the "considered obvious" stuff? From MAINTAINERS: > All developers recognized by this file can make arbitrary changes to > OBSOLETE targets. > > All maintainers can test and thence approve non-trivial changes to > ``maintenance only'' targets submitted by recognized developers. > > All recognized developers can make mechanical changes (by virtue of > the obvious fix rule) to ``maintenance only'' targets. The change > shall be sanity checked by compiling with one of the listed targets. However, typically, a global write maintainer, or I end up going through the changes. enjoy, Andrew