Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Andrew Cagney <address@hidden> writes:

> > 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?
> 
> I'm trying to compare the two systems, and note the benefits offered
> by the current GDB.

That's fine, but you haven't answered my question.

Do you have an answer?


> In GCC, on the other hand, global developers are able to directly, and
> immedatly approve patches - without any need to defer or refer to the
> relevant maintainer.  I suspect, however, that there is something of
> an unwritten convention?

Yes, of course there is.  Everybody acts in a reasonable fashion,
using their intelligence, guided by experience.  If somebody does
something stupid, they are chastised, and they try not to do it
again.

> Either way, the thing to study, is what happens when things go wrong.
> 
> In GCC, people complain, and the global maintainers step in.

And ultimately, in principle, the steering committee makes a decision.
That doesn't happen very often, though.


> In GDB, people complain, and unfortunatly, there's no short term
> relief valve - [typically] I pester the area developer and often I'll
> end up helping out short term (fine with me).  A more automatic
> mechanism might be of benefit here.

Any thoughts as to what that mechanism might look like?  There are
other proposals on the table; do you agree with them, or do you have
any suggestions?

Ian