From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29544 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 12:57:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29409 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2002 12:57:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2002 12:57:31 -0000 Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (toenail.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.211]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6150EB8013; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:57:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from bje@localhost) by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g39CvUj09168; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:57:30 -0400 From: Ben Elliston MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15538.58681.963609.704984@toenail.toronto.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 05:57:00 -0000 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Nick Clifton , Andrew Cagney , Geoff Keating , Chris Demetriou , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common In-Reply-To: <3CB1C857.9080902@cygnus.com> References: <3C85A44B.6090403@cygnus.com> <15537.43529.140988.838892@toenail.toronto.redhat.com> <3CB1C857.9080902@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney 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