From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23481-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 32739 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2005 03:06:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 32731 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2005 03:06:10 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:06:09 +0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) 	id 1EfTuX-0005E7-2i; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:06:05 -0500
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:07:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, david.carlton@sun.com, 	gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB
Message-ID: <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, 	Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, david.carlton@sun.com, 	gdb@sourceware.org
References: <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> <uwtj5hbxj.fsf@gnu.org> <yf21x1dshey.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com> <uk6f4hqil.fsf@gnu.org> <yf2wtj0gpb2.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com> <ulkzfyx8s.fsf@gnu.org> <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> <ubr0azm2f.fsf@gnu.org> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> <u1x15zstf.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <u1x15zstf.fsf@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:36:44PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Anyway, I think we made several circles around the issue, so further
> discussion won't bring any new arguments.

I agree.

> 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.  If no one objects to the
> latter method too much, then we could make everybody happy; if not,
> then, well, it won't be the first time I get voted down here...

What do you consider a reasonable value for N?

I'm somewhat worried about the timeout causing friction whenever it is
used; but we can give it a try and see what results we reach.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC