From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21250 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 15:12:27 -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 21216 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 15:12:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 15:12:26 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9433C2E96; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:17:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E539FF8.70201@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:12:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process References: <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <20030218042847.50F2E3CE5@localhost.redhat.com> <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <20030218023553.2BBB73D02@localhost.redhat.com> <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <15953.20132.193102.752916@localhost.redhat.com> <20030219014904.GA11446@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 >> > Right now, we use stricter policies to prevent problems which cause >> > breakage. I think these policies are stifling us. Loosening them (and >> > maybe adding a formal patch reversion policy) would let more people fix >> > problems more easily, as they arise, without slowing development. >> > >> >> I really think that having the bug database track patches is a very >> big improvement. We should try to push its use a bit more before >> giving up on the current rules. > > > I don't like it, but that's just my general anti-GNATS rancor. Maybe > Bugzilla will be better. The idea of tracking things as bugs or GNATS? Tracking this stuff in a public database is, I think, clearly better than the status quo (my mailbox). It's already been mentioned that there is possibly a lack of response with some maintainers. At least with me putting unreviewed patches in the database, we can figure out what patches there are, and if there is a problem. (my todo list includes checking that all the key developers are on the bug tracking list, I suspect that some are not.) Anyway, have a look in the database, you'll notice all sorts of interesting things. For instance search for tdep & h8300. There is an obvious backlog and someone (a global maintainer like yourself or I) needs to step up and work through them with the contributors. That task, while no where near as glamerous as a new feature, is absolutly needed and maintainers do need to be willing to chip in (in fact I think that task and documentation should be given a higher profile when handing out `credit'). Hopefuly these patches will even yield a new developer. Andrew