From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29479 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 22:39:19 -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 29470 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 22:39:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (66.30.22.225) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 22:39:18 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 1F3E71BCA9; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:39:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:39:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process Message-ID: <20030219223928.GB8779@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <3E53B2E0.2070801@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 Has anyone taken the time to go through the list of outstanding patches and categorize them by maintainership? I'm wondering if this is just a problem with a couple of maintainers being unresponsive. For instance, as a not-so-wild guess, I'd say that the symtab part of gdb frequently falls behind. That may be because there are more symtab-related patches being supplied or it could be that I'm just imagining things. If there are some maintainers who just aren't responsive enough, for whatever reason, then the simple expedient of adding another maintainer for that specific part of gdb might go a long way towards fixing the backlog. However, if the patches are all over the board then this technique probably won't work. cgf