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

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 08:27:12AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > > > >MAINTAINERS:
> > > > >  If there are several maintainers for a given domain then
> > > > >  responsibility falls to the first maintainer.  The first maintainer is
> > > > >  free to devolve that responsibility among the other maintainers.
> > > > >
> > > > >I apologize.

> > Sorry, but I'm stunned.
>
>
> Sorry, but is there a point to this response or are you just being
> snide?

No, sorry, my jaw dropped, I couldn't comprehend how you could not be 
aware of this.

You see here Jim agreeing to become a secondary for the i386, but 
retaining other responsibilties:
        o       Jim Blandy is busy over coming weeks /
                months and is taking a back seat on
                the day-to-day linux stuff.  He's
                definitly interested and wants to
                participate in more serious architectural
                issues.  Looking forward to when Jim
                is back fully on line.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-05/msg00277.html
(at the time, Elena was a two week old secondary symtab maintainer).

> I am not the secondary area maintainer for anything, nor the first area
> maintainer in an area with more than one maintainer.  Also, I deal with
> areas that have multiple maintainers constantly (symtab, threading, for
> example), and I've never seen any exercise of authority to illustrate
> this point - or even an explicit punt to the first maintainer.