Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-25T23:42:32Z

On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 12:03:40AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> I've not contributed much to this discussion. For one thing I've not
> had too much time over the past two weeks to actively participate, and
> the time I had, I spent on writing code and fixing bugs. I really
> think that at most we need a set of guidelines; not a set of spelt out
> rules. I let the time I wait for approval depend on several factors:
> when my change is complex, invasive, etc. I'll probably wait months
> before I'll commit the patch without explicit approval. If the patch
> is borderline obvious, I'll usually ask for objections and commit if I
> don't see any within a few days. I'll also check whether I see any
> posts from the responsible maintainer on the list. If he/she is
> usually very active, but not posting to the list for a while, I'll
> just wait until he/she is back again. I think in general this works
> pretty well, and if for some reason a particular maintainer expresses
> his/her unhappiness with my action I try to change my behaviour. I
> think that's the way we should interact with each other.

I think that's the most effective way to get things done _at present_.
But at present, not much does get done.

The problem is that it's very touchy-feely. You have to have a mental
profile of what every maintainer wants. You have to constantly worry
about stepping on someone's toes. You have to be willing to wait -
sometimes for a very long time - to fix bugs in "other people's code".

The common parts of GDB, the parts where we do currently have (mostly
busy or inactive) maintainers... and the wide-reaching interfaces that
it hurts to even touch... they're terribly out of date. I strongly
believe that GDB needs to evolve if it wants to stay relevant. I'm
trying to create an environment where:

- The people who are interested in improving GDB can do so.
- New contributors don't find posting GDB patches to be a futile
and frustrating (sometimes baffling) experience. Which they
currently do. I've spoken with plenty of contributors who
felt this way in the last two years.
- Consequently contributors to GDB are more likely to stay around
for the long term, help GDB grow, and share the maintenance
burden.

> Yes we had problems in the recent past with a particular maintainer.
> But I still think the other maintainers (including myself) are partly
> to blame for that situation. Trust between maintainers was broken,
> but you're not going to restore that trust by formulating some strict
> rules.

The situation I presume you're talking about is not the problem I'm
trying to solve.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC