From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15381 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2005 20:16:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 15366 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2005 20:16:00 -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; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:16:00 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-21-94.inter.net.il [80.230.21.94]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CZR22492 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:14:19 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:16:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jim Blandy CC: gdb@sourceware.org, kevinb@redhat.com, cagney@gnu.org, jtc@acorntoolworks.com, fnf@ninemoons.com, kettenis@gnu.org, Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de, shebs@apple.com, msnyder@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com In-reply-to: <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> (message from Jim Blandy on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:40:56 -0800) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@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/msg00356.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:40:56 -0800 > From: Jim Blandy > > I'm a bit concerned that one global maintainer can, by reverting a > patch, demand to be persuaded, or have the issue kicked to the > steering committee. If at least (say) four global maintainers comment > on the patch and (say) 75% or more of those who comment feel the patch > should go in, shouldn't that be enough to get it in? We could restrict the revert rule to those cases where a patch was committed that is not backed up by anyone except the person who committed it.