[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules
From: |
Daniel Jacobowitz |
Subject: |
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:33:06 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.1i |
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:14:39AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Finally, and most importantly, I think during 2003 it became apparent
> that GDB's community (as identified by those participating in GDB's
> development processes - reviewing and contributing patches, engaging in
> disucssion, testing, ...) was, for the first time, being dominated by
> non-"Cygnus" players. Assuming this state of play continues, we should
> finally be able to slay the "Cygnus controls and dominates GDB" dragon.
I would say, was being less dominated by "Cygnus" players, which is not
the same. I won't pursue this line of discussion further, since I
haven't seen this dragon at work.
> - the other GDB perenial - stagnation
>
> More for the record. I'm always seeing pressure to slow GDB's
> development, principably because it makes the maintenance of
> uncontributed code harder. Last year saw an increased level of pressure
> intended to slow GDB's development, I'm guessing in responce to an
> increase in GDB's rate of development.
Please expand upon this, for my education. The proposed changes are
pressure (from GDB developers) to increase the rate of GDB's
development further. I think that is more relevant to GDB as a GNU
project than commercial pressure to slow development - none of which I
remember seeing discussed publicly.
> - the other other perenial - old dormant / inactive developers
>
> There is still no clearly documented process for addressing this.
> Adding more developers to an area appears to be approach used by GCC?
> It's only a short term solution.
No, GCC's approach is to have active global maintainers who can and do
approve patches in otherwise dormant areas.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, (continued)
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Jim Blandy, 2004/01/29
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/29
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules,
Daniel Jacobowitz <=
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Michael Snyder, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Elena Zannoni, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Elena Zannoni, 2004/01/29