From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31516 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2005 20:47:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 31509 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2005 20:47:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:47:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731E848D2A5; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 18166-01-7; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AA848D0A7; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 908AB47E79; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:47:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:20:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: david.carlton@sun.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051124204727.GJ1635@adacore.com> References: <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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/msg00545.txt.bz2 > In a healthy society he who accepts a burden on behalf of others > should be rewarded, even if the reward is not the most important > reason to take the burden. I agree, but the reward is not always where you think it is. To me, the reward has been a good free debugger. > Anyway, I think we made several circles around the issue, so further > discussion won't bring any new arguments. There's Daniel's > suggestion, and there's another one, supported by myself and I think > Chris, which is to allow authorized maintainers other than the RM to > kick in only after a timeout of N days. I'm fine with this approach. I think it's the polite thing to do anyway. -- Joel