From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6117 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2005 09:31:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 6103 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Nov 2005 09:31:01 -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; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:31:00 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-203-24.inter.net.il [80.230.203.24]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id DBB35347 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:30:55 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:38:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Mark Kettenis CC: drow@false.org, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200511252303.jAPN3ewj023750@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message from Mark Kettenis on Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:03:40 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> <20051125052810.GA23958@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20051125160454.GB29028@nevyn.them.org> <20051125204347.GA7107@nevyn.them.org> <20051125213849.GA8364@nevyn.them.org> <200511252303.jAPN3ewj023750@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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/msg00574.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:03:40 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: gdb@sourceware.org > > I really think that at most we need a set of guidelines; not a set > of spelt out rules. What would be those guidelines, specifically? I presume, if we go that way, those guidelines do need to be spelled out somewhere, yes? In any case, it would seem to me that we've already been there in this discussion: the idea that being nice and cooperative will solve the problems. At least some of us don't believe that this method is good enough in practice. > Yes we had problems in the recent past with a particular maintainer. > But I still think the other maintainers (including myself) are partly > to blame for that situation. Acknowledging the blame is important, but it does not in itself produce a promise that this won't happen again. > Trust between maintainers was broken, but you're not going to > restore that trust by formulating some strict rules. I think following rules is a good way of restoring trust. What would you suggest in its stead? (We've discussed this issue as well, so you may wish to re-read those parts of the thread.)