Re: [Gdbheads] Let's resolve this quickly

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:46:14 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <address@hidden>
> 
> Anyway, lets for a moment assume that patch review time is the problem. 

I think you are responding to old arguments, while recent discussions
have shown that a more painful problem is with patches whose review
leads to nowhere.  That is, it is _patch_review_resolution_, rather
than the time until the first response, that is the problem.

I think if a patch is rejected, the reasons for rejection should be
clearly stated, and in particular, the person who submitted the patch
should understand what is it that needs to be fixed for the patch to
be accepted.  The explanations should be convincing and comprehensive,
as well as clear and unequivocal, to avoid the impression that the
real reasons for the patch not being approved are something other than
what's being said in the clear.

> Yes, we need to find better ways of distributing the patch review load, 
> but lets not be fooled into adopting the wrong mechanism.

That's a trivium that everybody agrees to.  The hard part is coming
up with practical suggestions to that effect.

> How would you feel as an area maintainer if all the patches for your 
> area were being approved by GDB most active global maintainer?

If that most active maintainer did a good job, I'd applaud.  If not,
I'd state my views and make sure that either our differences of views
converge and we both see things similarly, or else be forced to work
harder to review patches ahead of that other maintainer.  In extreme
conditions, if all else failed, I'd start reverting patches that I
cannot live with.