From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id +aqUKKZtO2GCLgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:37:26 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9207A1EE23; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:37:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61E241EE1F for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:37:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2E1384B0FA for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:37:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AA2E1384B0FA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1631284643; bh=bWC7Jq4zvqUX4NAK3OvHkPIFb2AxQUPC4881rG3vSFA=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=JVRSA31pG0KgWsBSX5MyT4Nl4/RUBU82TsM2dzLGNlv7uJB0IKrWNbJKVGwlyzaya NFh/6+g9lD1rrTseem8nG70X6tsUrkbjMpgj+jYz6Pz9SgA/j7wtOxjEbn4mIbpOw/ tacDR7r8u+tYIqmhBeFcwNR2ZI3h6fyB0Kf00rWc= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A35353858C39; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:35:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A35353858C39 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 18AEZcv2007588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:35:43 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 18AEZcv2007588 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C165D1EE1F; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Maintenance of top-level files To: Alan Modra , Andrew Burgess References: <20210908082349.GC1487362@embecosm.com> Message-ID: <3cd92a64-5dd4-d2fc-7355-eaed64c27121@polymtl.ca> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:35:35 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:35:38 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 2021-09-10 12:58 a.m., Alan Modra via Gdb wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 09:23:49AM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote: >> My question then, is what are peoples thoughts on how these files >> should be managed? > > The question I take it really is: Who has authority to approve > patches, and at least some responsibility to respond to bug reports > related to these files? > > I don't think we (binutils + gdb) should take the position that these > files are owned by gcc, and thus authority and responsibility fall to > the listed gcc build machinery maintainers. That doesn't seem fair or > reasonable. The situation with top level files is very different to > say, libiberty, where binutils+gdb is unlikely to want changes that > are completely uninteresting to gcc. With top level config*, Make*, > libtool.m4, lt* and so on we often want changes that aren't > interesting to gcc, and vice versa. A model where changes are > installed first into one repository and then backported to the other > makes sense, I think. Agreed. They generally are not too controversial changes anyway. > So do we want someone appointed top-level build machinery maintainer > in binutils+gdb? If so, I nominate Simon Marchi if he's interested. > Why Simon? Because in digging through top-level logs, he's the most > recent (2018) person to act as a maintainer of those files, commit > d0ac1c4488. Before that, there was Ralf Wildenhues in 2010. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge about how the top-level build machinery works. Unless we starting having patches that are particularly controversial, I think it's ok if all binutils and GDB global maintainers can approve patches to the top-level. We should still make sure that patches that touch these files are sent to both lists. Simon