From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6919 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 06:42:49 -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 6906 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 06:42:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net) (194.217.242.85) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 06:42:49 -0000 Received: from tiptree.demon.co.uk ([158.152.73.173]) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 18q68V-0002CQ-0Z; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 06:42:48 +0000 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 06:42:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [RFA] ObjC Testsuite Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, msalter@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com, fedor@gnu.org To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain From: richard@tiptree.demon.co.uk In-Reply-To: <200303031615.h23GFBc26561@duracef.shout.net> Message-Id: <8273D87E-4E0C-11D7-97B4-00306544502E@tiptree.demon.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 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.