Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:44PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > If you are "responsible" for patch review in a specific area, it means
> > that you have promised that you will review all patches in that area
> > in a reasonably timely fashion.
> > 
> > If you are "authorized" to commit patches in a specific area, it means
> > that you can commit patches without anybody else's approval.
> 
> Thanks, I think I understand now.  What fooled me was that Daniel said
> "authority to review patches", not "authority to commit patches".  And
> since almost anyone can comment on a patch posted to gdb-patches, it
> wasn't clear what kind of authority we were talking about.

Ahh!  Thanks, that's very helpful feedback.  I've been using "review"
sloppily when I really mean "approve and apply, or reject".

> > At least in the U.S., anybody is "authorized" to make a citizen's
> > arrest if they see a crime being committted.  But only the police are
> > "responsible" for doing so.  If a civilian sees a crime being
> > committed and does nothing, nothing happens to the civilian.  If a
> > policeman sees a crime being committed and does nothing, he gets fired
> > from his job.
> 
> But, unless I'm mistaken, Daniel didn't suggest to ``fire'' the
> responsible person(s) in our case, did he?  So the analogy is not
> really full; in particular, what kind of responsibility is that if you
> aren't going to be fired for failing to do that for which you are
> responsible?

You are mistaken.  It's not a zero-tolerance policy, of course, but if
you are listed as responsible and not doing your job, the global
maintainers or SC should address it:

  Some maintainers are listed as responsible for patch review in
  particular areas.  If a maintainer is not currently able or willing to
  review patches, please contact the global maintainers or the steering
  committee, who will resolve the situation and find a replacement or
  assistant if necessary.

This is one of the big differences that having clearly listed
responsibility gives us.  We don't have to take away their commit
access just to resolve this particular problem.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC