From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29192 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 15:21:29 -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 29179 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 15:21:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 15:21:28 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18lXvT-0006SA-00; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:22:31 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18lW2G-0001F1-00; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:21:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process Message-ID: <20030219152123.GA4751@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <20030218042847.50F2E3CE5@localhost.redhat.com> <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <20030218023553.2BBB73D02@localhost.redhat.com> <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <15953.20132.193102.752916@localhost.redhat.com> <20030219014904.GA11446@nevyn.them.org> <3E539FF8.70201@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E539FF8.70201@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:17:12AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> > Right now, we use stricter policies to prevent problems which cause > >> > breakage. I think these policies are stifling us. Loosening them (and > >> > maybe adding a formal patch reversion policy) would let more people fix > >> > problems more easily, as they arise, without slowing development. > >> > > >> > >>I really think that having the bug database track patches is a very > >>big improvement. We should try to push its use a bit more before > >>giving up on the current rules. > > > > > >I don't like it, but that's just my general anti-GNATS rancor. Maybe > >Bugzilla will be better. > > The idea of tracking things as bugs or GNATS? Mostly, GNATS. > Tracking this stuff in a public database is, I think, clearly better > than the status quo (my mailbox). It's already been mentioned that > there is possibly a lack of response with some maintainers. At least > with me putting unreviewed patches in the database, we can figure out > what patches there are, and if there is a problem. (my todo list > includes checking that all the key developers are on the bug tracking > list, I suspect that some are not.) > > Anyway, have a look in the database, you'll notice all sorts of > interesting things. Which reminds me. We've got two GNATS databases set up for GDB: 'gdb' and 'gdb-patches'. Should we use the gdb-patches GNATS database to separate them from bug reports? > For instance search for tdep & h8300. There is an obvious backlog and > someone (a global maintainer like yourself or I) needs to step up and > work through them with the contributors. That task, while no where near > as glamerous as a new feature, is absolutly needed and maintainers do > need to be willing to chip in (in fact I think that task and > documentation should be given a higher profile when handing out > `credit'). Hopefuly these patches will even yield a new developer. TBH, I've been avoiding it because I don't know the slightest thing about the h8300 and it seemed like someone (I don't remember who - MichaelS maybe?) did. If I'm wrong then one of us is just going to have to suck it up and learn about the h8300... yay, another project. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer