From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11308 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 18:24:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 11293 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 18:24:42 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:24:42 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-161-34.inter.net.il [84.228.161.34]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CZT78090 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:24:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:24:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:26:18 -0500) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <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> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00396.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:26:18 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > I don't think the words are at all similar in semantic meaning. > Responsibility is an obligation and authority is a privilege. What I meant was that the expression of their meaning is similar: it's who reviews patches, right? > This would be easier with Venn diagrams, but they don't lend themselves > to email very well. Let me give some examples. Afterwards, I will > attempt to clarify the original descriptions, if these help. Sorry, I must be too dumb today. In the example you've given, who has the ``authority for reviewing patches''? > > Isn't it desirable to have an expert for each area of GDB code? If > > not, why not? what are the disadvantages of that? (I don't think this > > is directly related to the present discussion, but I was too surprised > > to read your negative response to Joel's question to let that go > > without understanding it.) > > Perhaps we're just using "goal" differently. Probably. Thanks for explaining what you meant.