From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14426 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2005 20:43:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 14416 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2005 20:43:52 -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 20:43:50 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EfkQ7-0001xT-Rm; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:43:48 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051125204347.GA7107@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> <20051125052810.GA23958@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20051125160454.GB29028@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00566.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:08:31PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:04:54 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > You see, I was thinking a couple of days, or up to a week. > > Two days is awfully too few, IMO. I could think of many reasons why I > could be away of my mail for two days. Not everyone hacks GCC and GDB > for their living and have an opportunity to read gdb-patches during > office hours. I apologize. I realize this is grammatically busted usage of English, but I've never been able to break myself of it. Here's the one I was using: couple n 1: a small indefinite number; "he's coming for a couple of days" i.e. I meant 3-5, not two, which I agree is far too short. I'm more than comfortable with Joel's 7-10 days, also. [By the way, I don't generally have an opportunity to read gdb-patches during office hours either. I do it more than I feel I ought to.] > > 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 think there's a misunderstanding: 3 weeks was suggested as a > _timeout_, i.e. an extreme value beyond which we behave as if the > responsible maintainer were not there. It is not suggested as the > _average_ value. If, several months from now, we see that the average > delay is anywhere near 3 weeks, I will be the first one to suggest we > do something about it. What are you suggesting doing with the current set of maintainers, then? The fact remains that for most patch review, three weeks is currently optimistic. > > 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. > > That's another misunderstanding: there's no need for the other > maintainers to wait before they post comments about the proposed > patches, not even for a minute. They could do that right away. One > needs to wait only for the approval. Any other comments, style or > otherwise, need not wait. > > In other words, the timeout is not a silence period during which no > one can say anything about the proposed patch. It's the max time we > give the responsible maintainer to review the patch and make up her > mind whether to approve it. Of course. But when the contributor asks us "OK, can it be applied now", we have to answer "please let's wait 19 more days". > > 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? > > Responsible maintainers that time out repeatedly should be asked to > do better or to step down. Great, I agree. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC