From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23335-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 32184 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 21:40:43 -0000
Received: (qmail 32161 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 21:40:41 -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; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:40:41 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-164-161.inter.net.il [84.228.164.161]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) 	with ESMTP id BYZ52561 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:40:36 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:40:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uwtj5hbxj.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>, gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:51:35 -0500)
Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> <uhdab58w9.fsf@gnu.org> <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <uirur58wx.fsf@gnu.org> <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> <u7jb65c8f.fsf@gnu.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <u7jb5izkk.fsf@gnu.org> <m3fyptyex6.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <20051118185135.GA13986@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/msg00405.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:51:35 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, gdb@sourceware.org
> 
> Eli, if this helps, here's another sort of example: someone who has
> done a lot of work in an area, and who we trust to make changes to that
> area without review, might be listed as "authorized to commit".  But
> that person may either be uninterested in reviewing other people's
> changes (unfortunate; I'm not sure how I'd feel about this case in
> practice), not very good at reviewing other people's changes, or simply
> always too busy to review other people's changes.  So listing them as
> the responsible maintainer would do a disservice to the rest of the
> community.

I'm worried that people might not want to take the responsibility upon
them if others, who don't share the responsibility, are allowed to
commit changes nonetheless.

In other words, if responsibility doesn't come with some unique
authority, who will want such a responsibility?