From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13597 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2005 20:13:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 13585 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2005 20:13:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cgf.cx (HELO cgf.cx) (24.61.23.223) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:13:39 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id A84AB13C1B0; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:13:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:41:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051123201337.GB757@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 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/msg00533.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:34:11PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >So these things can and did happen, and I don't think it's fair to ask >someone to take responsibility for some part of GDB and at the same >time to tell them they should expect to fight with others who have >write access and who just happen to respond faster to RFAs. I've been lurking on this discussion (except for the highly fruitful discussion about whether maintainers should be cc'ed) but I have to say that Eli summarizes my concerns above. As has been mentioned, the gcc project has similar rules and I've occasionally had the experience of having things checked into cygwin/windows-specific sections of gcc without my approval. The changes are ones that I agree with but it is still disconcerting. I've got a little more vested in gdb than I do in gcc so I'm likely to be a little less happy about changes to my area of maintenance and I worry about people accepting changes which seem to make sense but do not take into account concerns that I may have with my more thorough understanding of windows. I guess, in short, I'm concerned about well-meaning global maintainers who don't know what they don't know making changes that will cause me some work later. I don't relish the idea of arguing with someone about a change that they have just approved. So, I think I'd be more comfortable with some sort of timeout on patch review such that a global reviewer will only apply a patch if it has gone unreviewed by an area maintainer after N days. However, if something like that is not acceptable, then I will just adapt. cgf