Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-27T05:00:20Z

On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 11:23:11AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:38:49 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> >
> > Can we all reach compromise on two weeks?
>
> I'm not happy with two weeks because I myself didn't finish a review
> in two weeks several times.
>
> If my proposal, for immediate (i.e. less than a week) reaction that
> acknowledges the RFA and states the ETA, is okay with you, would you
> mind to extend the timeout? Chris said he likes this idea.

Yes, I like this - in fact, that's what I was planning to use in my
next revision of the proposal (which I didn't find time for today after
all).

I never wanted a promise that the review of anything would be
_finished_ within the timeout; I realize I may have been unclear about
that. I did want it to _start_, however - feedback on the patch from
someone who could approve or reject it, even if they did neither.

Having a week ACK and a month for the actual review is fine with me.
It meets my primary goal: clear signs of progress, or a clear path
forward if no signs of progress are seen. And I still mean "the start
of the review", within that month.

> If we cannot find any compromise along the above-mentioned guidelines,
> I will reluctantly agree to the 2-week timeout.

It's my goal to find something that we're all minimally reluctant about
:-)

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC