|
From: | Michael Snyder |
Subject: | Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules |
Date: | Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:54:52 -0800 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 |
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Snyder <address@hidden> writes:Voting is not the central theme of the proposal. Voting is for a last resort conflict resolution, not for everyday approval. The central point of the proposal is that blanket write maintainers have the authority to approve patches in any part of gdb, even if there is an area maintainer assigned to that part.Then let me turn it around to you and ask why you need voting. What problem does it solve?
Frankly, it was just meant to tidy up a loose end "what-if" that came up in the discussion. "What if one maintainer says a change is OK, but another says it isn't, and after some discussion they can't agree?"
It really wasn't meant to be a pivotal point, it was just added for completeness. I don't think anyone is that attached to it.
I'd be happier if you answered on the list, rather than to me directly.
Sorry, wrong "reply" button.
The solution is having somebody with the authority and the responsibility to review patches who makes patch review a high priority.If one person with that authority is good, isn't several better?Yes.
That is really the pivotal point.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |