From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31346 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2004 16:13:30 -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 31339 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2004 16:13:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO yosemite.airs.com) (209.128.65.135) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2004 16:13:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 12928 invoked by uid 10); 23 Mar 2004 16:13:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 7679 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2004 16:13:17 -0000 To: Robert Dewar Cc: Bob Rossi , gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files References: <20040225040059.GB19094@white> <16456.65451.461753.66554@localhost.redhat.com> <20040306155700.GA9439@white> <20040311132508.GA2504@white> <20040323130900.GA17339@white> <40605C9F.2050700@gnat.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <40605C9F.2050700@gnat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00521.txt.bz2 Robert Dewar writes: > Bob Rossi wrote: > > > I hope I have not offended anyone here, since honestly, each of the GDB > > people I have talked to has done a great job helping me out. It's > > just the system on a whole that seems to be lacking. > > I don't see any fundamental problem here. This is after all a volunteer > project and people have limited time to review patches, as they have > limited time for anything they do on the project. Of course we all > understand that it is frustrating when it takes a while for a patch > to be approved, but there is no one who can order someone else to > spend more time on this. 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. There is always a > fundamental trade off between reliability/stability/control and > adding nice new features. The fundamental problem is that in order for a volunteer project to succeed, it is essential to pay close attention to the care and feeding of volunteers. Otherwise, the project eventually comes to lack any volunteers. I've already described my views at some length here: http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gdbheads/2004-01/msg00032.html As I said in that message: "patch review is the most important aspect of being a GNU maintainer." Ian