From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27673 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2016 15:11:13 -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 27659 invoked by uid 89); 27 Oct 2016 15:11:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=healthy, practices, Peer, competent X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:11:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4186680F94; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9RFAxZE004080; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] improve trace gap handling To: Yao Qi , "Metzger, Markus T" References: <1469175120-19657-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <8637ji83dd.fsf@gmail.com> Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00766.txt.bz2 On 10/27/2016 04:03 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > 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. > I definitely agree. It's because we trust you and think you're competent that we made you btrace maintainer. :-) FWIW, I've quickly skimmed the patches now looking for something that I might even have input on, and I found nothing. Regarding style and following GDB practices, I think your patches are consistently perfect. Thanks, Pedro Alves