From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12620 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 12:14:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 12574 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 12:14:51 -0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:14:51 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-139-254.inter.net.il [84.228.139.254]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id BYY26902 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:12:17 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:14:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jim Blandy CC: gdb@sourceware.org, cagney@gnu.org, jtc@acorntoolworks.com, fnf@ninemoons.com, Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de, ezannoni@redhat.com In-reply-to: <8f2776cb0511171310m556a37c5r723cef451735a96a@mail.gmail.com> (message from Jim Blandy on Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:10:21 -0800) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511171310m556a37c5r723cef451735a96a@mail.gmail.com> 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/msg00376.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:10:21 -0800 > From: Jim Blandy > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Andrew Cagney , > "J.T. Conklin" , > Fred Fish , > Peter Schauer , > Elena Zannoni > > > The problem is, trust is built by following rules which are initially > > intentionally restrictive. As the trust grows, the restrictions can > > be gradually lifted. > > That's not the pattern I'm familiar with. An organization can have > strict rules, and as trust is built up, people will tolerate those > rules being bent or set aside in specific cases. But I've never seen > the restrictions be explicitly lifted as a result of that. I don't see any significant difference between these two patterns. If and when people tolerate rule-bending, we might as well codify that. > We have restrictions in place that many of GDB's contributors don't > like, and which are definitely hampering progress. You are generalizing what I said in a way that wasn't in my intent. I wasn't arguing for more restrictions, I was arguing for codified self-restraint where we were burnt in the past. > > By contrast, you suggest to begin with unconditional trust. We > > already tried that in the past, and we saw what happened. Why try > > that again? why assume that what happened once, cannot happen again? > > You need to be more specific. I agree with your characterization that > we trusted too much in 1999 that everything would just work out, but I > don't see that this proposal makes the same mistake. What particular > passages concern you? The comment by Daniel that his suggestions, and specifically the power to commit without an RFA, implicitly assume trust. > What are their consequences? Bad blood and, eventually, deep mistrust. We've been there, I'm sure you remember that. Daniel says that if we don't trust each other, we should ``work on trust''. But how do we ``work on trust''? do we all go to a shrink together once a week? The only way I know of to work on trust is by building it as we cooperate in the development and maintenance of GDB. And while trust is in construction, it might be a good idea to take some voluntary restraint upon ourselves.