From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32034 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2002 21:23:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32027 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2002 21:23:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 21:23:21 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9A23DCE; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:23:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C9CF23A.5040306@cygnus.com> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:23:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: cgd@broadcom.com, Nick Clifton , Andrew Cagney , Geoff Keating , Ben Elliston , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common References: <3C85A44B.6090403@cygnus.com> <3C87F2DC.8070205@cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 Did anyone else have a comment on this thread? > At Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:08:27 -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > I'm wondering if it would be helpful for sim specific maintainers (at least for sim/common based sims) to have implicit approval/write permission on the sim/common directory. > > > Uh, I was assuming that in general we (sim maintainers) had write > after approval perms, but that approval was still required. > (Concerned by your "write permission" comment there. Do tell me if > i'm wrong. 8-) > > Sim directory maintenance was, for a long time, very vague. I'm trying to clarify things a little so that people that have a motivation to work in this directory can do so with little or no hinderance. At the same time trying to ensure that a few basic procedures are followed. > > I think part of this is ensuring that people directly affected by the infrastructure have a fairly free reign over it. > > Personally, I wouldn't mind someone else having responsibility for > reviewing my 'common' patches. > > Even if you have write privs on sim/common you're still free (encouraged?) to seek advice from others. (Is this change a good idea? In 20:20 hindsight was that bit a bad move?) > > I'd like to make sure i'm not doing more damage than i intend, and i > say 'responsibility' because if somebody doesn't consider it their > responsibility well, then, it probably won't happen. > > Just as long as the damage is limited to ``flesh wounds'' :-) Whats the worst that could happen - something gets broken? Oops! Actually, I think that the worst that could happen is for the code's development to stagnate (unless, that is, there is no one that thinks it is useful). > > enjoy, > Andrew