From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-8372-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24617 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 19:32:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 24594 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2002 19:32:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2002 19:32:07 -0000
Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 32D363CC2; Tue,  9 Apr 2002 15:32:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3CB341B9.8050609@cygnus.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 12:32:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Elliston <bje@redhat.com>
Cc: cgd@broadcom.com, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>,
	Geoff Keating <geoffk@redhat.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common
References: <3C85A44B.6090403@cygnus.com>	<15537.43529.140988.838892@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>	<3CB1C857.9080902@cygnus.com>	<15538.58681.963609.704984@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>	<mailpost.1018357082.12343@news-sj1-1>	<yov5g024px2q.fsf@broadcom.com> <15539.12623.535923.366462@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2

> "cgd" == cgd  <cgd@broadcom.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>> While I agree with this point, I also like the idea of having a
>   >> devil's advocate to approve sim/common patches.  In the heat of the
>   >> moment, it's easy to think of patches to sim/common to solve
>   >> port-specific problems that are not in the best interest of all
>   >> simulators.
> 
>   cgd> For what it's worth, I agree with Ben here.  8-)
> 
>   cgd> I'd _prefer_ to have others review my changes (as long i can
>   cgd> get that review in a timely fashion)...
> 
> Agreed--and as I stated, I don't believe there is any evidence to
> suggest that timeliness is an issue at this point.

In addition to reviewing patches, a maintainer is typically assumed to 
be ``maintaining'' the existing code: fixing bugs, rewriting design 
mistakes, adding new features, ....

enjoy,
Andrew