From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32054 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2002 03:33:16 -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 32047 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 03:33:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 03:33:15 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4DA3D58; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:33:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CC8CA75.8010405@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:33:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020424 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christopher Faylor Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: which patches to review References: <20020423.220943.39181580.davem@redhat.com> <3CC6D4E2.E5858735@apple.com> <3CC6E84D.2090403@cygnus.com> <20020424.103856.00478620.davem@redhat.com> <3CC8137D.6050809@cygnus.com> <20020425211324.A6519@nevyn.them.org> <20020426013611.GA30067@redhat.com> <20020425214551.A12948@nevyn.them.org> <20020426021725.GB30466@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01071.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:45:51PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >>>Hmm. I was under the impression that 1) Andrew was the head maintainer >>>for gdb > >> >>If so, this isn't said anywhere. It certainly may be true; all I know >>is that he's a blanket write maintainer and the release manager for the >>last several releases. If the GDB projects has a single head >>maintainer, perhaps that should be listed in gdb/MAINTAINERS somewhere? > > > It's true. Maybe "head maintainer" is the wrong word. I don't know what > the correct PC term is. The PC term is GDB Adminstrator. The details are all in the mail archives. > You're correct, however, in saying that this isn't mentioned anywhere > obvious. I agree that should be corrected. > > Maybe we should make a new hard rule that no further changes to > MAINTAINERS will be accepted until this oversight is corrected. :-) I don't see a reason to identify one global write maintainer as being different to any other. Andrew