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

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

Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com> writes:

> GDB is a volunteer work!

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.  It's not clear whether
anybody is paid specifically to maintain gdb.  When I was at Cygnus I
was paid to maintain the GNU binutils, though that was certainly not
my only job.  I don't know whether Red Hat has carried that sort of
thing forward.

> If you keep insisting that a maintainer have to review patches within a
> given timeframe and that they should step down if they can't, then I
> think we're going to lose a lot of maintainers. Will GDB really be
> better off? I think not.

I would say that the issue is how to best keep gdb moving forward.

On the one hand, if we require prompt patch review, then gdb may lose
maintainers.  On the other hand, if patches are not reviewed promptly,
then gdb may lost contributors.  There is a balance between the two.
The goal is to keep the balance from tipping too far to one side or
the other.

I don't know myself whether the balance is indeed tipped too far for
gdb.  As I've said, I do think that maintainers should treat patch
review as their most important activity.

> I think you're looking at the wrong solution. The real solution,
> according to me, is not to push away good maintainers that have only so
> much time, but to help the group of maintainers to act as a team.
> When one maintainer is too busy, then the rest of the team should be
> allowed to step up and help the busy maintainer by reviewing patches
> and answering emails in his place. The real problem is that GDB
> currently has bottlenecks, and that's the issue that needs solving,
> one way or the other.

Yes, this sort of approach has been proposed by several different
people, including some gdb maintainers.

Ian