From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12382 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2005 20:14:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 12223 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2005 20:14:21 -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; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:14:21 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-21-94.inter.net.il [80.230.21.94]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id BYW19352 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:12:05 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:14:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sourceware.org CC: Jim Blandy , Kevin Buettner , Andrew Cagney , "J.T. Conklin" , Fred Fish , Mark Kettenis , Peter Schauer , Stan Shebs , Michael Snyder , Elena Zannoni In-reply-to: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:48:01 -0500) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00354.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:48:01 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Jim Blandy , Kevin Buettner , > Andrew Cagney , > "J.T. Conklin" , > Fred Fish , Mark Kettenis , > Peter Schauer , > Stan Shebs , Michael Snyder , > Eli Zaretskii , Elena Zannoni (Why CC everyone, if we all read the list?) > Most changes (especially additions) to the list of recognized maintainers > are handled by consensus among the global maintainers. Final authority > resides with the GDB Steering Committee. Does this mean any addition to the list of recognized maintainers must be brought before the committee for the final approval? > Responsible Maintainers > > These are active developers who have agreed to review patches to particular > areas of GDB, in which they have particular knowledge and experience. The > areas are expected to be broad; multiple maintainers responsible for an area > may wish to informally subdivide the area further to improve review. > > *LIST* The current list of responsibilities need to be carefully redone, for this to be effective (you say something similar in the comments, see below). > Separating responsibility for patch review from authority for patch review > is a new concept for GDB; I believe the suggestion was Ian's. This separation is not at all clear from the text. I needed to go back and reread it after reading this comment, but even upon second reading I'm still not sure what the text really says. Whose responsibility is it to review patches and who has the authority for patch review, according to your proposal? So I think the text should be made more explicit on this; perhaps simply mention and explain this separation instead of leaving it for the reader to deduce. > I have always been in favor of the concept that global maintainers should be > able to approve patches anywhere, without having to wait for area > maintainers. If we don't trust each other enough for that, then we need to > work on the trust and/or the list of maintainers. The problem is, trust is built by following rules which are initially intentionally restrictive. As the trust grows, the restrictions can be gradually lifted. 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? > I would like for every defined "area" of approval to be fairly well defined, > possibly a specific list of files. Yes. > This does not replace the entire explanatory text of the MAINTAINERS file of > course. Bits like the Obvious Fix rule or the bits about Joel's role as RM > would remain. I've just covered the section highlights. It would be better to post diffs against the current MAINTAINERS. Then no one will need to guess what parts are being replaced and which aren't. Thanks for working on this, anyway.