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

[Andrew Cagney]

> > 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).

[bad edit...] and hence Jim at least had a clear knowledge of this.  Am 
I being unreasonable in assuming that Jim, as organizer, had ensured 
that all existing pratices and policies had been reviewed - if nothing 
else to ensure that all participants were aware of what was being changed?

If we're serious about changing GDB's patch review process we need to to 
it properly - analyze the problems and identify solutions.  Part of that 
is identifying the existing dynamics, and the aspects that work.

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

I guess I was assuming that you had read the MAINTAINERS file.

Andrew