Re: [maint] sim and common

[Ben Elliston <bje@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

  >> Why do you feel it would be helpful?  I don't think there has been any
  >> evidence that patch approvals for sim/common has been a bottleneck or
  >> indeed even a problem for anyone to date.

  Andrew> Is it unhelpful?  The people with the best idea for what to do with the 
  Andrew> common framework are most likely going to be those that are actively 
  Andrew> developing simulators.   Right now that is CGD (Chris D).

While I agree with this point, I also like the idea of having a
devil's advocate to approve sim/common patches.  In the heat of the
moment, it's easy to think of patches to sim/common to solve
port-specific problems that are not in the best interest of all
simulators.

  Andrew> Anyway, further down in the thread, Frank has stated that,
  Andrew> in his opinion, GDB's global write maintainers have ``global
  Andrew> write'' on sim/common.  Is this what you understand?

I had not seen that, but okay.

  Andrew> The above was a suggestion for how to handle the situtation
  Andrew> where the SIM role is vacent.  I think the consensus is that
  Andrew> the SIM maintainers should be identified separatly and
  Andrew> explicitly.

Good.

Ben