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

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:49:52AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >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).

Note the date - I did not participate in GDB development until 2001.  

The ChangeLog doesn't correctly describe the diff to MAINTAINERS, by
the way :)

> 
> >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.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer