From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19226 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2005 22:06:29 -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 19081 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2005 22:06:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao05.cox.net) (68.230.240.34) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Mar 2005 22:06:21 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050305220615.KWPR3789.lakermmtao05.cox.net@white>; Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:06:15 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1D7hPf-0001Dr-00; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:06:19 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 22:06:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: patch review time Message-ID: <20050305220619.GA4481@white> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com References: <16938.5992.336181.640228@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16938.5992.336181.640228@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:32:40AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > BTW, 2 of the MI MAINTAINERS completely do *nothing*. They don't respond > > to Emails, they don't review patches, and as far as I can tell, do > > nothing behind the scene. > > > Shouldn't they be removed from this position, since, IMO, they are *not* > > maintaining the code. I think having 3 maintainers under the section > > > mi (gdb/mi) Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com > > Elena Zannoni ezannoni@redhat.com > > Fernando Nasser fnasser@redhat.com > > > is misleading. Since Andrew is the *only* one I can tell is maintaining > > code for MI, even if it's not at the speed that I desire. > > Hang on. Let's be pragmatic. How will things get *better* if they are removed. > They are the original authors and know the code better than the rest of us. > We don't know what their committments/current interests are. At the moment, > they might contribute at some time in the future. If they are removed then > presumably they won't. Nothing is stopping them from contributing now or in the future. As far as I can tell, things will not get better with them in or not in the MAINTAINERS file. I don't even get responses from them when I send Emails. I guess I don't really care if they are noted as MAINTAINERS even if they don't maintain the code. I just want to make it clear that there is 1 active maintainer, not 3. > Bob, you're not the only one whose e-mails go ignored. Answering questions, > reviewing patches takes up time. Unpaid time. If my e-mail is unanswered, it > tells me something: either people aren't interested or they are too busy. > Sometimes I let it go, sometimes I realise it was a stupid question, and > sometimes I send another e-mail and try to add something to get a reply. I don't really care about the "unpaid" time business. My time goes unpaid as well, so I see it as a clean slate, we're all even here. Answering Emails and reviewing patches are some of the job's of a maintainer. My Emails and patches are ignored often, this tells me that there is no MAINTAINER that has time/interested in having another contributer improve upon the MI code base. This tells me that there is a lack of active maintainers in the area. I'm going to contribute a large amount to GDB/MI and get it done within a reasonable amount of time, or I'm not going to be able to. The point of this Email thread is to bring up the fact that I simply can not wait months and months to get what I need to get done, done. Bob Rossi