Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com>]

Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:19:16AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > 
> > >I want to note that this is only partially true.  In fact there are a
> > >number of people who are paid to work on gdb. 
> > 
> > Yes, but they aren't necessarily paid to work for the same goals as
> > FSF maintenance. If I am working for company X which wants a reliable
> > GDB for target Y, we may have zero interest in a patch that does not
> > promote this goal.
> 
> This was basically asking my question in a sentence.
> 
> What incentive does a maintainer have in reviewing patches quickly?

When I worked at Cygnus, part of my job was being the binutils
maintainer.  The details were unspecified by management, but the
general idea was to keep the FSF happy with Cygnus and to get as much
free work out of the community as possible.  So that was an incentive
to do effective patch review, beyond my own personal feelings.  As I
said, although Red Hat is the effective maintainer of gdb given that a
plurality of gdb maintainers work for them, I don't know whether Red
Hat is actually paying anybody to work toward these, or similar,
goals.

Robert, it's interesting to read your comments in light of the history
of the gcc/egcs split.  After all, Richard Kenner worked for GNAT at
the time, and I believe that you did too.  In my opinion, Kenner
expressed the attitude which you express--in his case, stability for
Ada was the preeminent goal.  I think that attitude was a significant
root cause of the gcc/egcs split.  I think that tends to prove my
earlier point in an extreme case: if you don't make an effort to
encourage your volunteers, you lose them.

Ian