From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-41199-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11510 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2005 09:55:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 11497 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2005 09:55:33 -0000
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:55:33 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-251-213.inter.net.il [84.228.251.213])
	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR)
	with ESMTP id BUN48168 (AUTH halo1);
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:55:21 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:32:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uacgssl4j.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
CC: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20051028181043.GA31049@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel
	Jacobowitz on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:10:43 -0400)
Subject: Re: suggestion for future changes to GDB website
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20051025222234.GE900@adacore.com> <vt2fyqpw2es.fsf@theseus.home.> <20051026002923.GC1155@adacore.com> <vt2ek67vlew.fsf@theseus.home.> <20051028180325.GT1155@adacore.com> <20051028181043.GA31049@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2005-10/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:10:43 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 11:03:25AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > All the developers who answered were in favor of posting the changes
> > one way or the other. Let's agree on one of the following forms:
> > 
> >   1. Post patch to gdb-patches BEFORE checkin
> >      Not sure how to make things work: Approval needed? Etc.
> > 
> >   2. Post patch to gdb-patches AFTER checkin
> > 
> >   3. Have an automated system that sends the patch with RH to
> >      a mailing-list. Could be a dedicated mailing-list, or one
> >      of the GDB existing mailing lists.
> > 
> > I'm OK with either of the proposals.
> 
> How about just treating it like part of GDB?  Allow global maintainers
> to make or approve changes, and list it in MAINTAINERS.

Yep, that's what I'd suggest as well.  Wed already have procedures in
place for dealing with RFA's, so let's just use them.