From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29976 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2002 16:26:41 -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 29920 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 16:26:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out2.apple.com) (17.254.0.51) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 16:26:38 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g3QGQcs29802 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:26:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:26:38 -0700 Received: from apple.com (vpn-gh-56.apple.com [17.254.136.55]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g3QGQa304558; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CC97FB8.BE4F0369@apple.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:26:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney , "David S. Miller" 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01084.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:36:11PM -0400, Christopher Faylor 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? The old situation was that from the point of view of the FSF, I was the sole maintainer, and that everybody else was at most "helpers" (I kid you not). After the formation of the GDB Steering Committee - which was never announced by RMS like he was supposed to - I proposed to the committee that I retire as maintainer, but that we retain the concept of a single head or chief maintainer, mainly to avoid the evils of committee indecisiveness, and that Andrew be that chief maintainer. There was basically no reaction either positive or negative, not exactly a ringing endorsement, but certainly justifying my concern about the decisionmaking abilities of committees! :-) So we've proceeded on that basis "unofficially" since then, and it seems to have worked well enough. You're right that it ought to be documented; I can do it if the head maintainer is shy about taking the crown and putting it on his own head. :-) Stan