From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15043 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 21:09:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 15035 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 21:09:44 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:09:44 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-164-161.inter.net.il [84.228.164.161]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CZU06487 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:09:40 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Ian Lance Taylor CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Ian Lance Taylor on 18 Nov 2005 10:44:05 -0800) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <8f2776cb0511162244u5274377m70684a364a8a7edd@mail.gmail.com> <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00403.txt.bz2 > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > From: Ian Lance Taylor > Date: 18 Nov 2005 10:44:05 -0800 > > If you are "responsible" for patch review in a specific area, it means > that you have promised that you will review all patches in that area > in a reasonably timely fashion. > > If you are "authorized" to commit patches in a specific area, it means > that you can commit patches without anybody else's approval. Thanks, I think I understand now. What fooled me was that Daniel said "authority to review patches", not "authority to commit patches". And since almost anyone can comment on a patch posted to gdb-patches, it wasn't clear what kind of authority we were talking about. > At least in the U.S., anybody is "authorized" to make a citizen's > arrest if they see a crime being committted. But only the police are > "responsible" for doing so. If a civilian sees a crime being > committed and does nothing, nothing happens to the civilian. If a > policeman sees a crime being committed and does nothing, he gets fired > from his job. But, unless I'm mistaken, Daniel didn't suggest to ``fire'' the responsible person(s) in our case, did he? So the analogy is not really full; in particular, what kind of responsibility is that if you aren't going to be fired for failing to do that for which you are responsible?