Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Andrew Cagney <address@hidden> writes:

> > If a global maintainer approves a patch that an area maintainer sees
> > is incorrect, the area maintainer will have the ability to back out
> > the patch.  It's a minor problem, not a major one.
> 
> Reverting patches isn't currently part of GDB's culture - the last
> time I did it, I was disciplined by my peers.  As a consequence, I
> won't revert patches - instead always putting forward a rationale for
> the reversion, and asking that it be done.  What would happen if they
> refused, I don't know.

Hmmm.  The proposal on the table is that global maintainers should be
able to approve patches to any part of gdb.  You objected to that
proposal.  I made a statement explaining how I thought it could work
in practice.

Your reply says that my statement is not part of gdb's culture.  That
doesn't seem relevant to me.  We're talking about changing gdb's
culture.  The fact that the change is not part of the current culture
is a given.


> >> Good old "common sense".  Sounds good in theory.
> > It is not only good in theory, it is good in practice.  The process
> > has been working quite smoothly for both gcc and the binutils for over
> > five years.  Clearly gdb is not working smoothly, or this discussion
> > would never have arisen.
> 
> Ian, I would like to agree with you.  "Use your common sense", and
> "use your judgment" are phrases I've used when core maintainers have
> demanded that GDB's procedures be clearly codified.

I'll note that it seems that there is a disagreement here over
something which apparently is clearly codified.  The issue here is not
about making something more clear.  It is about changing something
which is clear, something which is not susceptible to common sense and
judgement.  At least, that is how it seems to me.

> But do we have a situtation where common sense applies when two of
> GDB's committee members (Stan and Jim) are both involved in this, and
> for months?

What is the referent of the word ``this?''  If you mean the current
argument among the gdb maintainers, then I don't think it is
relevant.

The common sense which applies here is common sense on technical
matters: the way that gdb is maintained, and the way that patches are
handled.  It is not sense about personal issues.  Many hackers are
perfectly fine on technical matters and perfectly dreadful on people
matters.  That does not disqualify them from maintainership.

Also, I'm afraid that this is easily turned around on you.  As head
maintainer, as somebody who has fielded complaints in the past,
shouldn't you have used your common sense to see this coming?


> > Since we have a process which works well for gcc and the binutils, and
> > a different process which is not working all that well for gdb, I
> > think the onus here is on you to explain why gdb is different from gcc
> > and the binutils.  Why shouldn't gdb adopt the working process?

I'm disappointed that you did not try to answer this question.


> Something I try to do is hold back on my patch review (unless it is
> clearly on something related to me) - that way hopefully other core
> developers get comfortable with picking things up.  (actually I have
> to do this, as otherwize me going walkabout would leave a vacume).

Holding back on patch review is perfectly reasonable as long as you
tell people that you are doing it.  If you don't tell them, then it's
just being passive-aggressive.

Ian