From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7176 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2003 20:21:04 -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 7162 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2003 20:21:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2003 20:21:03 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B882EF9; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:25:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E568B45.9060502@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:21:00 -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: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB's roles References: <3E567466.3040508@redhat.com> <20030221185123.GA18445@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2 > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:48:06PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Core Maintainers: >> >> These are the people on which everyone else depends. They put >> themselves to the grindstone ensuring that the GDB wheel keeps turning. >> These are the people that do the hard work of reviewing / approving >> patches. These people need to be relatively reliable. These people >> need to be willing to do the dirty work (such as restructuring) that >> can't reasonably be expected of a contributor. >> >> While a core maintainer might also be responsible for certain specific >> areas (symtab, threads, remote), they won't cherry pick the patch list >> and definitly won't fall asleep at the wheel. >> >> >> Specific Maintainers: >> >> These are responsible for specific areas. Native, target, host and >> language maintainers come to mind. Their responsabilities are pretty >> clear, while needing to be responsive, they are not on the critical path >> like core maintainers. The thing I really like about the target >> maintainers is how they, every so often, pop up to do some maintenance >> (eliminate something deprecated), and then pop back down again. > [...] The set of core maintainers breaks down into specific > maintainers for core components. The paragraph: >> While a core maintainer might also be responsible for certain specific >> areas (symtab, threads, remote), they won't cherry pick the patch list >> and definitly won't fall asleep at the wheel. is trying to express this. core different to maintainers of sub-systems such as the target, native, language or host. The critical nature of a core maintainer isn't there though. Typically maintainers of nat, tdep, et.al. code are in a `if it ain't broke / deprecated, don't fix it' situtation. While fixes/patches should make it into the next release, they are not so much on the critical path. Contrast that to my current core activity of rewriting frames. I'm on the hook for everything. Anyway, the main thing is that my post is a `white paper', a discussion `puff piece'. Andrew