From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13985 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2004 15:49:50 -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 13974 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2004 15:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2004 15:49:47 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD56EF2EBF; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:49:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 07710-01-10; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:49:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from gnat.com (hoosic.gnat.com [205.232.38.102]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA61F2EA2; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:49:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40605C9F.2050700@gnat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:49:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Rossi Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdbheads@gnu.org Subject: Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files References: <20040225040059.GB19094@white> <16456.65451.461753.66554@localhost.redhat.com> <20040306155700.GA9439@white> <20040311132508.GA2504@white> <20040323130900.GA17339@white> In-Reply-To: <20040323130900.GA17339@white> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00519.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi wrote: > I hope I have not offended anyone here, since honestly, each of the GDB > people I have talked to has done a great job helping me out. It's just the > system on a whole that seems to be lacking. I don't see any fundamental problem here. This is after all a volunteer project and people have limited time to review patches, as they have limited time for anything they do on the project. Of course we all understand that it is frustrating when it takes a while for a patch to be approved, but there is no one who can order someone else to spend more time on this. Now perhaps more people should have approval authority, but that of course has its own draw backs in terms of keeping the entire project under control. There is always a fundamental trade off between reliability/stability/control and adding nice new features. Can you give some idea of why you feel it is so urgent to get this patch in place. I don't see it as an urgent matter, and I don't find this delay unreasonable, but perhaps I am missing something.