From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18168 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2004 19:16:03 -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 18147 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 19:16:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 19:16:01 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2PJG0WA017359 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:16:01 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2PJFxM24129; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:15:59 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (dhcp-172-16-25-160.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.25.160]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2PJFwC20417; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:15:58 -0800 Message-ID: <40632FED.6040303@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:16:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; es-ES; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030922 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Ian Lance Taylor , Robert Dewar , gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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> <40605C9F.2050700@gnat.com> <20040325043648.GA20454@white> <20040325055925.GS1104@gnat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040325055925.GS1104@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 0 X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00628.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: >>I completely agree with Ian here. So the question is, >>is patch review the most important aspect of being a GNU GDB maintainer? >> >>How many GDB maintainers would answer yes to this? > > > GDB is a volunteer work! > > If you keep insisting that a maintainer have to review patches within a > given timeframe and that they should step down if they can't, then I > think we're going to lose a lot of maintainers. Will GDB really be > better off? I think not. > > I think you're looking at the wrong solution. The real solution, > according to me, is not to push away good maintainers that have only so > much time, but to help the group of maintainers to act as a team. > When one maintainer is too busy, then the rest of the team should be > allowed to step up and help the busy maintainer by reviewing patches > and answering emails in his place. The real problem is that GDB > currently has bottlenecks, and that's the issue that needs solving, > one way or the other. Here here. > I'm only a contributor, but I have barely enough time to followup > on the review of my own patches. I have messages from some maintainers > following up on my own messages that I need to answer and have been > sitting in mail mailbox for weeks. How can I, a fairly regular > contributor, ever ask/force volunteers maintainers to do any more than > they are already doing? >