From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6381 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2005 19:18:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 6374 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2005 19:18:30 -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; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:18:29 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-31-154.inter.net.il [80.230.31.154]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id CAR80754 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:18:14 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:22:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Ian Lance Taylor CC: msnyder@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Ian Lance Taylor on 26 Nov 2005 20:59:40 -0800) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <43893653.4080209@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00597.txt.bz2 > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com > From: Ian Lance Taylor > Date: 26 Nov 2005 20:59:40 -0800 > > For comparison, a gcc patch which causes a testsuite or significant > performance regression on a primary target may be reverted, if any two > people with write privileges (i.e., not just maintainers, but also > write-after-approval) agree, after waiting for 48 hours. In practice > this is rarely actually done; the threat of it is normally enough to > resolve the situation one way or another. Thanks for the info. However, our problem was what to do when a patch does not cause failures in the testsuite, but still causes objections.