From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30188 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2005 04:30:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 30180 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2005 04:30:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 04:30:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jAR4UDPb004644 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:30:13 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jAR4UDV18183 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:30:13 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jAR4UCSY030084 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:30:12 -0500 Message-ID: <43893653.4080209@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 04:50:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00588.txt.bz2 I sincerely hope to forward the discussion toward, rather than away from convergence. These are casual suggestions; if anyone thinks they're too daft, I'll happily withdraw them. 1) Unique approval authority. How about this -- if there's to be a specific maintainer with sole approval authority for certain areas, there'll have to be a list of them somewhere: presumably in the MAINTAINERS file or equivalent. What if each such area maintainer has the right to spell out his or her own policy as far as "timeouts", etc.? Rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all policy? Eg.: Area Maintainers: gdb/doc: Eli Zaretskii. Checkin policy: "I prefer that any changes other than obvious fixes await my explicit approval for at least 3 weeks". mumble mumble: Daniel Jacobowitz Checkin policy: "If I haven't responded within 3-5 days, any global maintainer may approve." 2) Reverting a patch There hasn't been too much discussion of this, but it makes me nervous. May I throw this out on the table? How about if, except for area maintainers, it requires the agreement of at least two maintainers to revert another maintainer's patch? To be perfectly clear, that means that if someone checks in a docs patch that Eli doesn't like, Eli can yank it out immediately, but other than Eli it would require a motion and a second.