From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 874 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2005 04:50:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 866 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2005 04:50:31 -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; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 04:50:28 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-9-252.inter.net.il [80.230.9.252]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id DBE35790 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 06:50:24 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 04:59:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Michael Snyder CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <43893653.4080209@redhat.com> (message from Michael Snyder on Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:30:11 -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/msg00589.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:30:11 -0800 > From: Michael Snyder > > What if each such area maintainer has the right to spell out > his or her own policy as far as "timeouts", etc.? Rather than > forcing a one-size-fits-all policy? I'm not sure this is needed, but I have no objections to adding this. > 2) Reverting a patch > > There hasn't been too much discussion of this, but it > makes me nervous. May I throw this out on the table? > How about if, except for area maintainers, it requires > the agreement of at least two maintainers to revert > another maintainer's patch? I'd prefer it the other way around: a patch can be reverted if it (the patch) does not have anyone to support it except whoever committed it. In your scenario: > To be perfectly clear, that means that if someone > checks in a docs patch that Eli doesn't like, Eli > can yank it out immediately, but other than Eli it > would require a motion and a second. it means that I can revert the patch if no one else thinks it should stay.