From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4428 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2003 18:51:26 -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 4421 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2003 18:51:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2003 18:51:26 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18mK9n-00044N-00 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:52:31 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18mIGa-0004oU-00 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:51:24 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB's roles Message-ID: <20030221185123.GA18445@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3E567466.3040508@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E567466.3040508@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:48:06PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Core Maintainers: > > These are the people on which everyone else depends. They put > themselves to the grindstone ensuring that the GDB wheel keeps turning. > These are the people that do the hard work of reviewing / approving > patches. These people need to be relatively reliable. These people > need to be willing to do the dirty work (such as restructuring) that > can't reasonably be expected of a contributor. > > While a core maintainer might also be responsible for certain specific > areas (symtab, threads, remote), they won't cherry pick the patch list > and definitly won't fall asleep at the wheel. > > > Specific Maintainers: > > These are responsible for specific areas. Native, target, host and > language maintainers come to mind. Their responsabilities are pretty > clear, while needing to be responsive, they are not on the critical path > like core maintainers. The thing I really like about the target > maintainers is how they, every so often, pop up to do some maintenance > (eliminate something deprecated), and then pop back down again. One of my concerns from my previous thread about this, which seems to have died, is that the above doesn't completely describe current structure. The set of core maintainers breaks down into specific maintainers for core components. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer