Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-18T18:51:40Z

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:26:18 -0500
> > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > >
> > > 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