From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6678 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 18:51:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 6670 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 18:51:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:51:39 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EdBKh-0003eE-PM; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:51:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ian Lance Taylor , Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00399.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:26:18 -0500 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > > > I don't think the words are at all similar in semantic meaning. > > > Responsibility is an obligation and authority is a privilege. > > > > What I meant was that the expression of their meaning is similar: it's > > who reviews patches, right? > > I'm not sure what you mean, but I think that I do understand what > Daniel means. Thanks for the alternative explanation, Ian! Eli, if this helps, here's another sort of example: someone who has done a lot of work in an area, and who we trust to make changes to that area without review, might be listed as "authorized to commit". But that person may either be uninterested in reviewing other people's changes (unfortunate; I'm not sure how I'd feel about this case in practice), not very good at reviewing other people's changes, or simply always too busy to review other people's changes. So listing them as the responsible maintainer would do a disservice to the rest of the community. In an ideal world, none of those would ever happen. In ours I expect they happen frequently. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC