Re: [RFA] ObjC Testsuite

[richard@tiptree.demon.co.uk]

On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 04:15  pm, Michael Elizabeth Chastain 
wrote:
>
> Also, this whole review process is getting messy, we are going to have
> several people pushing Adam in different directions.  I would like to
> figure out *first* who are going to be the maintainer(s) of
> gdb.objc, and then those people should be the reviewers of this patch.

I've been lurking following this process and trying to figure out 
what's going
on, and I wholeheartedly agree that sorting out a few individuals to get
things moving makes sense.

I was getting increasingly worried that, while stuff is being reviewed, 
none
of it actually seems to be getting into CVS ... even one of the 
earliest patches
to simply add the existing objc code into the configure/make process and
activate it (which I think one reviewer said was a no-brainer or 
something
similar) is still outstanding.

I've noticed that the objc patches supplied in the last few months have
already begun to bit-rot.
Surely to avoid that sort of thing, the turnaround between submission
for review and addition to CVS needs to be closer to three days than
three months for most changes.  I'm very aware that the sheer number
of patches submitted for review for gdb overall will be putting a lot of
load on reviewers, so hopefully having one or two people making a
particular effort to focus on the ObjC code will help solve this 
problem.

Incidentally, I have Adams patches (with some modifications to account
for the recent removal of SYMBOL_NAME) running on debian intel and ppc
successfully, so if I can herlp in any way I'm willing.