Re: [Gdbheads] Re: Feb's patch resolution rate

[Richard Stallman]

      That's because no
    one, to the best of my knowledge, is claiming that GDB development is
    dysfunctional.  As long as GDB maintenance as a whole works fairly
    well, the average figures of any reasonable performance estimator will
    be good.  IMHO, it is the (relatively rare) exceptions from the rule
    that bothered and continue to bother those among us who came up with
    suggestions to modify the existing practices.

I can understand that these occasional long delays cause annoyance to
the people who wrote those particular patches.  However, I don't think
that occasional long delays indicate a fundamental problem in the way
gdb is being maintained.  It seems to be basically adequate.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be better.  I will ask the gdb
committee, whose membership I have just updated, to look into finding
a procedure to help deal with these long-delayed patches.