Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Jim Blandy <address@hidden> writes:

> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> >     Having said that, I would say that, if the rules proposed had been in
> >     place for the last year, then GDB 6.0 would have had better support
> >     for C++ nested types and namespaces, and that it would also have had
> >     non-user-visible changes to improve its maintainability
> > 
> > Off-hand I would not say this is a terrible problem--especially if
> > some of them are being installed now.  I suppose the maintainers had
> > some reason not to want to install that code as it was written.
> 
> You're assuming that the maintainers had reviewed the patch, but
> didn't quite like it.  But simply getting patches reviewed in the
> first place takes too long.  This is a bottleneck we think our
> proposal would improve.

If the problem is ``getting patches reviewed in the first place takes
too long,'' then the solution is not voting.  The solution is having
somebody with the authority and the responsibility to review patches
who makes patch review a high priority.

How does voting solve that problem?  It seems to me that you are
essentially trying to use voting to spread out the authority and the
responsibility.  Why not do that directly?  Why is voting useful here?

I'm not asking these questions rhetorically.  I'd like to hear your
answers.

Ian