From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31572 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2005 16:04:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 31547 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2005 16:04:58 -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 16:04:57 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Efg4E-0007Zq-Jx for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:04:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051125160454.GB29028@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> <20051125052810.GA23958@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00561.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:36:05AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:28:10 -0500 > > From: Christopher Faylor > > > > 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. > > How about if we start from something simple, like 3 weeks of timeout > and no other conditions? Then, a year or so from now, we could > analyze the results and see if we need to augment the rules. You see, I was thinking a couple of days, or up to a week. I think much longer than a week is effectively the same as not allowing timeouts at all. Please keep in mind that there are two very different cases: existing maintainers who are not authorized to commit in a certain area, and occasional or new contributors to GDB submitting a patch for review. Do you want to be the one to explain to all the latter group "no, sorry, we can't look at your patch for three weeks"? I've done the "no, sorry, we need so-and-so to look at this" routine a fair number of times in the past year, and it's no fun. With just a week, it's easy to give the contributor feedback on the style et cetera - which often takes a week anyway - while waiting for comments from the responsible party. I think such a long timeout would be a mistake. But alternatively, we could use a long timeout and an aggressive policy for maintainers who time out repeatedly - politely remove them from responsibility (shift into the authorized section). How do you feel about that? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC