From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8515 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 11:09:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 8495 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 11:09:03 -0000 Received: from fra-del-04.spheriq.net (HELO fra-del-04.spheriq.net) (195.46.51.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:09:03 +0000 Received: from fra-out-01.spheriq.net (fra-out-01.spheriq.net [195.46.51.129]) by fra-del-04.spheriq.net with ESMTP id jAIB8ocK006500 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:08:50 GMT Received: from fra-cus-01.spheriq.net (fra-cus-01.spheriq.net [195.46.51.37]) by fra-out-01.spheriq.net with ESMTP id jAIB8iue026542 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:08:49 GMT Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by fra-cus-01.spheriq.net with ESMTP id jAIB8dnN026583 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:08:43 GMT Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (ns2.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id DCE20DA84; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:07:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics, from userid 60012) id 6455E47337; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:10:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 2316475994; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:10:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.bri.st.com (mail1.bri.st.com [164.129.8.218]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 7A36647336; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:10:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [164.129.15.13] (terrorhawk.bri.st.com [164.129.15.13]) by mail1.bri.st.com (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CGZ52295 (AUTH "andrew stubbs"); Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:07:32 GMT Message-ID: <437DB556.1080008@st.com> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:09:00 -0000 From: Andrew STUBBS User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <8f2776cb0511162244u5274377m70684a364a8a7edd@mail.gmail.com> <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-O-Spoofed: Not Scanned X-O-General-Status: No X-O-Spam1-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Spam2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-URL-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus1-Status: No X-O-Virus2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus3-Status: No X-O-Virus4-Status: No X-O-Virus5-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Image-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Attach-Status: Not Scanned X-SpheriQ-Ver: 4.1.07 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00373.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >>Is everybody currently on the "Write After Approval" list considered >>to be a Maintainer? If so, I don't hope adding someone to that list >>will require explicit permision from the SC. > > > Definitely not. There's a sentence in the current MAINTAINERS about > how to become one; we can update that to be clearer with the new > scheme. I think being approved by anyone on the global maintainers > list should be sufficient - that's what it is in practice today, > anyway. Sound good to you? I don't want to get into the general discussion - it isn't really my business - but while you are rehashing MAINTAINERS ... I recently read MAINTAINERS for the first time. From my, not totally uninitiated, point of view, I have to say that most of it was fairly clear and understandable. However, I did have trouble on the above point, while trying to understand the 'Obvious Fix Rule'. It currently states that all listed 'maintainers' may invoke the rule. When I queried this on the list I was told that it also applies the the 'Write After Approval' list. I don't want to get into policy, but a clarification of the text would be nice. It's just a question of nomenclature really. Thanks Andrew Stubbs