From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3139 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2005 05:00:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 3130 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2005 05:00:19 -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; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:00:17 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EgEe6-0000p9-AA; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:00:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051127050014.GA2984@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> <20051125052810.GA23958@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20051125160454.GB29028@nevyn.them.org> <20051125204347.GA7107@nevyn.them.org> <20051125213849.GA8364@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/msg00591.txt.bz2 On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 11:23:11AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:38:49 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > Can we all reach compromise on two weeks? > > I'm not happy with two weeks because I myself didn't finish a review > in two weeks several times. > > If my proposal, for immediate (i.e. less than a week) reaction that > acknowledges the RFA and states the ETA, is okay with you, would you > mind to extend the timeout? Chris said he likes this idea. Yes, I like this - in fact, that's what I was planning to use in my next revision of the proposal (which I didn't find time for today after all). I never wanted a promise that the review of anything would be _finished_ within the timeout; I realize I may have been unclear about that. I did want it to _start_, however - feedback on the patch from someone who could approve or reject it, even if they did neither. Having a week ACK and a month for the actual review is fine with me. It meets my primary goal: clear signs of progress, or a clear path forward if no signs of progress are seen. And I still mean "the start of the review", within that month. > If we cannot find any compromise along the above-mentioned guidelines, > I will reluctantly agree to the 2-week timeout. It's my goal to find something that we're all minimally reluctant about :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC