From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23493-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14508 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2005 19:53:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 14499 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2005 19:53:19 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:53:18 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-66-246.inter.net.il [80.230.66.246]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) 	with ESMTP id CAH22361 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:53:14 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:08:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u8xvczeqa.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20051125155742.GA29028@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:57:43 -0500)
Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <yf21x1dshey.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com> <uk6f4hqil.fsf@gnu.org> <yf2wtj0gpb2.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com> <ulkzfyx8s.fsf@gnu.org> <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> <ubr0azm2f.fsf@gnu.org> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> <u1x15zstf.fsf@gnu.org> <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> <uwtixxgwk.fsf@gnu.org> <20051125155742.GA29028@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00563.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:57:43 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
> 
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by ``friction''.  Can you
> > elaborate?
> 
> I expect that contributors will get annoyed at maintainers who are
> responsible but inactive (because they've added delay), and in return
> those maintainers will get annoyed at contributors for any comments
> they make about the subject.

We could ask that maintainers immediately acknowledge seeing the RFA,
and tell the contributor the ETA for their review.  I think this will
avoid annoyances in many cases: people usually get annoyed that they
don't see any response whatsoever, not because they need to wait for a
few days.

> A timeout is all well and good for you and for documentation, Eli;
> you're unbelievably responsive.

Only for the documentation; when I need to review code, e.g. in
breakpoint.c, it usually takes a few days, as I don't have enough free
time on weekdays to wade through non-trivial code.

> I think we need to compromise and move on.

Yep.