From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3902 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2004 05:39:36 -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 3864 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2004 05:39:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 2004 05:39:35 -0000 Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.24) id 1B612a-00005D-0l; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:35:00 -0500 From: Richard Stallman To: Robert Dewar CC: bob@brasko.net, gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <40605C9F.2050700@gnat.com> (message from Robert Dewar on Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:49:51 -0500) Subject: Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files Reply-to: rms@gnu.org References: <20040225040059.GB19094@white> <16456.65451.461753.66554@localhost.redhat.com> <20040306155700.GA9439@white> <20040311132508.GA2504@white> <20040323130900.GA17339@white> <40605C9F.2050700@gnat.com> Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 05:39:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00550.txt.bz2 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. One option that could be considered is that a patch can be approved by two people jointly. If we don't want to give additional people individual authority to approve patches, it might be ok to give such authority to a pair of people, or to a few pairs. That might help things move.