From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27984 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2005 05:28:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 27974 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2005 05:28:12 -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; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:28:12 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 5A7AD13D354; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:28:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:36:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051125052810.GA23958@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00556.txt.bz2 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