From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15948 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2016 15:04:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 15920 invoked by uid 89); 27 Oct 2016 15:04:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=healthy, Peer X-HELO: mail-qk0-f193.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f193.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f193.google.com) (209.85.220.193) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:03:57 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f193.google.com with SMTP id x11so2722083qka.0 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:03:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jVoejcySgSfUs2prDjEBAd8SGesxylt1ymEjZeIh8QQ=; b=mU4Pi2hf69uNcZcaPye2r4jyvTYSyGpTOO9O8Wmuj+5Drk5VWeulA26SOplG2XiYmF iDIe9kFTtvA0sbaSzBH4xusYUSI/j90UAlK9tWQryCZod8v1OqOvTSfK7XQ4eawqBhY6 4Xh5IXi5jShc4vhDcBlKqMoC6TQ/NemzXdf627s8S7hnL2XVMuIEO5GeTd5vs/WH0Mpv s6tQ+cblsmRvBxpCsWS+e5u5LNMGwgyalT/7t8Dhij6oP5c4NX971y2e15JRKqJLLy4A U/QTc25aUAyXOhMXuKY/7DINgCxqygkTFMg6tYA+QaDHzYRj2h0hxn0cyaNMDlhf3XDm Fx9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdKDyeWMWeJkfu59TQeKtEPh5CahXtHVhhD5ik76QB2zzlzHuX8MalrqS4IwY4wQjbgPYJ6kfU8STwjmA== X-Received: by 10.55.69.73 with SMTP id s70mr7339341qka.161.1477580636229; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.149.168 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:03:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1469175120-19657-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <8637ji83dd.fsf@gmail.com> From: Yao Qi Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] improve trace gap handling To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "palves@redhat.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00764.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: > > Don't we want patches to be peer reviewed in general? Or are you > saying that I can and should make changes to record-btrace without > review? No, I am not saying that... :-) Peer review is always welcome. As we said in MAINTAINERS: "All maintainers are encouraged to post major patches to the gdb-patches mailing list for comments, even if they have the authority to commit the patch without review from another maintainer." You, as a "responsible maintainer" for btrace, can/should review all patches in the area of btrace, including patches written by yourself. I think all these rules are of a purpose of having a healthy code base with an efficient way. It helps nothing to block patches for three months due to lack of peer review. You must post your patches for review, and you have the authority to approve the btrace bits. You can leave your patches for a period of time, one week for example, in mail list to collect comments and objections. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)