From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31806 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2004 22:07:20 -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 31792 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2004 22:07:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2004 22:07:18 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 0F177C6CE; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:07:18 -0800 (PST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdbheads@gnu.org Subject: Re: Feb's patch resolution rate References: <20040225040059.GB19094@white> <16456.65451.461753.66554@localhost.redhat.com> <20040306155700.GA9439@white> <20040311132508.GA2504@white> <20040323130900.GA17339@white> <4060A523.6010801@gnu.org> <4060ACC8.10209@gnu.org> From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:07:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4060ACC8.10209@gnu.org> (Andrew Cagney's message of "Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:31:52 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00540.txt.bz2 On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:31:52 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: > BTW, did you ever get round to doing an analysis on who was reviewing > the symbol table patches. I haven't done a formal analysis, no, but my impression is that Elena usually reviews my patches and that Jim usually reviews Daniel's patches, and that Elena also reviews patches that aren't sent by either me or Daniel. My impression is also that I send out more (and larger?) symtab patches than Daniel does, so Elena does a lot more work than Jim. (This may change, however - my patches are largely in, and I'm in no hurry to generate significantly many more right now, whereas Daniel has projects still in progress.) I'm not entirely sure why you bring this up, but just in case, let me state once again: my complaints about patch review rate do not mean that I'm angry at any of the current patch reviewers: quite the contrary. In particular, Elena always does a very conscientious job of patch review, her comments are always to the point, I've never had difficulties resolving issues concerning specific patches on which she and I disagree, and I'm sure that she has far more than enough to do outside of patch review that the amount of reviewing that she currently does imposes a significant burden on her time. (I assume the same is true for Jim as well; as I said above, however, I interact with him less frequently during patch review.) My point is simply that, in the presence of other people who are quite competent to review patches in that area, it seems very strange to me to not allow them to contribute. In particular, given that Daniel knows the symtab code well (he's done more work on it over the last year and a half than either symtab maintainer, and you yourself were urging him to work on DW_OP_piece support), given that he's the C++ maintainer, given that he's a global maintainer, and given that he always looks at my C++-related symtab patches anyways (and doesn't just skim them - he's quite willing to complain about them when appropriate), it seems very strange to me that he's not allowed to approve my C++-related symtab patches. If your or Elena feels that she is doing an unfair amount of symtab reviewing (and I would agree with that), there's a fix available that is both easier and more likely to be effective than nagging Jim Blandy some more. I'm sorry that you and Jim apparently have a fair amount of bad blood between you, but I don't think presenting this as "Elena good, Jim bad" is useful right now. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com