Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Jim Blandy]

Ian Lance Taylor <address@hidden> writes:

> David Carlton <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I don't work on breakpoints, so I hadn't noticed this particular
> > example; the main benefit that I saw of this pruning is that the
> > testsuite had no local maintainers, which all of a sudden meant that
> > any global maintainer could approve testsuite patches, which meant
> > that a _lot_ of testsuite patches went in.
> 
> I would have to agree that any global maintainer ought to be able to
> approve patches to any part of the code.  That is how both gcc and the
> binutils work, and I think it has proven to be effective in practice.
> 
> Mind you, both projects have additional rules, like patches may not
> cause testsuite regressions, and, if they do cause regressions which
> are not fixed, any other global maintainer can revert them freely.

This is exactly the reasoning behind that half of our proposal.