From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23468-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 3810 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2005 04:51:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 3803 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2005 04:51:46 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 04:51:45 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-71-23.inter.net.il [80.230.71.23]) 	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) 	with ESMTP id DAR80145 (AUTH halo1); 	Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:51:42 +0200 (IST)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 04:56:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uacfuzm00.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20051123201337.GB757@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> (message from 	Christopher Faylor on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:13:37 -0500)
Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <u7jb65c8f.fsf@gnu.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <u7jb5izkk.fsf@gnu.org> <m3fyptyex6.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> <uwtj5hbxj.fsf@gnu.org> <yf21x1dshey.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com> <uk6f4hqil.fsf@gnu.org> <yf2wtj0gpb2.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com> <ulkzfyx8s.fsf@gnu.org> <20051123201337.GB757@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
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/msg00538.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:13:37 -0500
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
> 
> So, I think I'd be more comfortable with some sort of timeout on patch
> review such that a global reviewer will only apply a patch if it has
> gone unreviewed by an area maintainer after N days.

I suggested something like this somewhere in the course of this
discussion; I hope it didn't get lost in the dispute.  So I also am in
favor of such an arrangement.