Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Andrew Cagney <address@hidden> writes:

> Significantly, this dynamic is often absent in open groups.  Typically
> an "area maintainer" title serves no real purpose other than to provide
> a fast-path for that individual's (or their employeers) changes.  The
> mutual obligation of ensuring that patches are resolved, and
> development continues a pace being absent.  That responsibility instead
> falls to the groups core developers.

...

> Since Cygnus was dominating development, and had most of the GDB
> developers on their payroll (at that time it including me), and to
> this day "Cygnus" still has the largest single block of devlopers, it
> had to be clear that no core developer, nor I as overall lead
> developer could override an area lead's decision (if we disagreed we
> had to present a pervasive technical argument).

Andrew, I'm having a hard time working out precisely what you are
saying, so, just to be crystal clear: do you object to that part of
the proposed change in the e-mail from Kevin Buettner, to wit, that
any global maintainer may approve any patch, even to an area which has
an area maintainer?

Ian