From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11215 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 21:51:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 11193 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 21:51:50 -0000 Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (HELO nwkea-mail-2.sun.com) (192.18.42.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:51:50 +0000 Received: from sfbaymail1sca.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.154.35]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jAILpm4u011375 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:51:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from kealia.sfbay.sun.com (kealia.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.144.80.16]) by sfbaymail1sca.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id jAILpmTe020911; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:51:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by kealia.sfbay.sun.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id EBD6DBA7D; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:51:47 -0800 (PST) To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:51:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:48:01 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00409.txt.bz2 On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:48:01 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > I have put together one possible alternative, drawing heavily on > comments from Ian, Jim, and Andrew on the steering committee list > last year. Obviously I like my own proposal or I wouldn't be > sharing it :-) But I want to know what everyone else involved > thinks! I certainly don't qualify as involved any more, but I feel like chiming in anyways. In general, I heartily approve of this proposal; on a personal level, I think that it would have improved both my happiness and productivity as a GDB contributor in the past. In particular, I think that allowing global maintainers to approve and commit everywhere is long overdue; I also think that separating responsibility for reviewing from authorization for reviewing is a very good idea. I'm not sure GDB is quite big enough for the entire proposed ecosystem to work, but I think it's worth a try. I'm curious what the proportion of Responsible Maintainers to Authorized Committers in a given area will be; I'm also curious whether there will be enough (even any?) Patch Champions. But when I say "curious", I mean just that: let's try it and find out. Most importantly, it seems like the proposal might help grow the GDB ecosystem. Somebody starting to work on GDB (and with free time on their hands, a student or something) might decide, after a little bit, to take on the role of Patch Champion; after proving herself, she might become an Authorized Commiter in one area, and then eventually give up her Patch Champion roles in order to spend time as an actual Responsible Maintainer. So there's a nice possible ramp-up, where people can be trusted more and take on more responsibilities gradually over time. And, equally important, shed responsibilities as outside commitments impinge, without feeling that she is letting down everybody else. David Carlton david.carlton@sun.com