From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1988 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2005 17:42:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 1979 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2005 17:42:14 -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; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:42:12 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id B667513C0C1; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:42:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:18:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sources.redhat.com, Michael Snyder Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051127174210.GD22306@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com, Michael Snyder References: <43893653.4080209@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43893653.4080209@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 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/msg00596.txt.bz2 On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 08:30:11PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: >I sincerely hope to forward the discussion toward, rather than >away from convergence. These are casual suggestions; if anyone >thinks they're too daft, I'll happily withdraw them. > >1) Unique approval authority. > >How about this -- if there's to be a specific maintainer with >sole approval authority for certain areas, there'll have to be >a list of them somewhere: presumably in the MAINTAINERS file >or equivalent. > >What if each such area maintainer has the right to spell out >his or her own policy as far as "timeouts", etc.? Rather than >forcing a one-size-fits-all policy? Eg.: > > Area Maintainers: > gdb/doc: Eli Zaretskii. > Checkin policy: "I prefer that any changes other > than obvious fixes await my explicit approval for > at least 3 weeks". > mumble mumble: Daniel Jacobowitz > Checkin policy: "If I haven't responded within > 3-5 days, any global maintainer may approve." I don't like this much. I'd rather that there was just one rule that we could all (as Daniel says) reluctantly agree on. I think it will be pretty confusing to contributors otherwise. "Yes, I can apply your changes to inflow.c but I can't apply your changes to win32-nat.c since cgf is unavailable and his rules dictate that I can't apply your patch since you submitted it on the third Friday of a month with an 'r' in it." Not to keep bringing this up, but this reminds me of the "please Cc me when you send email to the mailing list" requirements. If you have to take extra effort to figure out how to do a common operation the you are putting impediments in the flow of communication. I don't think that's ever a good thing. cgf