Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:06:05PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>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.

Don't you think that the lack of a timeout could cause friction, too?

You don't have to answer that.  We've circled on this issue enough.  :-)

How about a month for the timeout period?  That won't accommodate a long
vacation but it should be enough for most scenarios.

Would adding a rider that says "Two global maintainers can agree to
apply the patch after two weeks of nonresponse" complicate things too
much?  I would hate for an important patch to languish just because
someone was on vacation.

cgf