From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23503-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2950 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2005 09:23:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 2942 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Nov 2005 09:23:24 -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 09:23:22 +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 DBB33488 (AUTH halo1); 	Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:23:08 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:31:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uwtivwyo0.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20051125213849.GA8364@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:38:49 -0500)
Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <ubr0azm2f.fsf@gnu.org> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> <u1x15zstf.fsf@gnu.org> <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> <20051125052810.GA23958@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <uy83dxgy2.fsf@gnu.org> <20051125160454.GB29028@nevyn.them.org> <u7jawze0w.fsf@gnu.org> <20051125204347.GA7107@nevyn.them.org> <uy83cxwxy.fsf@gnu.org> <20051125213849.GA8364@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00573.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:38:49 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> Can we all reach compromise on two weeks?

I'm not happy with two weeks because I myself didn't finish a review
in two weeks several times.

If my proposal, for immediate (i.e. less than a week) reaction that
acknowledges the RFA and states the ETA, is okay with you, would you
mind to extend the timeout?  Chris said he likes this idea.

Or, alternatively, we could have a very short timeout, like your
``couple of days'', not for the review itself, but for the initial
reaction of the maintainer; the time frame for the review could then
be negotiated between the contributor, the RM, and the rest of the
maintainers.

If we cannot find any compromise along the above-mentioned guidelines,
I will reluctantly agree to the 2-week timeout.