From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17416 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2003 05:41:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17397 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2003 05:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2003 05:41:28 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A3qlz-000729-3N; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:40:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:28:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200309282245.h8SMjhoO026916@duracef.shout.net> (message from Michael Elizabeth Chastain on Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:45:43 -0400) Subject: Re: Tracepoint support in Cygnus GDB ? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200309282245.h8SMjhoO026916@duracef.shout.net> X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00366.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:45:43 -0400 > From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain > > You can control directly the maintainer resources that you contribute. > If someone is listed as a maintainer you can ask them to perform the > functions of their maintainership (review your patches). You can nag > people, or inspire people, to do things that you think are important. > But we don't take orders from a centralized leader. I agree (how could I disagree? how could someone who've read my messages think I'd disagree?). I don't think my messages in this discussion were trying to do anything but ask, inspire and perhaps nag. However, there's something called leadership that, if applied with the kind of wisdom that I so cherish in the GDB maintenance team, tends to guide the troops even if there are no orders and no centralized control. If the leaders state specific goals, and do that convincingly, the other contributors will most probably follow suit. At least that's my experience. > I self-generated these goals. I'm open to input on them, but basically, > you would have a hard time convincing me to change my overall philosophy > from my vision (QA) to your vision (user-level features). I hope you will agree that a program exists to provide user-level features, not to satisfy QA. QA is a means; I hope there's ends to which the means exists.