[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules
From: |
Ian Lance Taylor |
Subject: |
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules |
Date: |
29 Jan 2004 08:43:00 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > Consensus or tyranny are better methods. If it is impossible for the
> > relevant maintainers to come to a consensus, and if the tyranny
> > becomes unacceptable, then there is a problem with the current set of
> > maintainers.
>
> And how would you propose to resolve such a problem?
I don't have a proposal. Each situation is different. I certainly
don't know enough about this one.
I've already been involved in one situation where the maintainers
could not come to a consensus, and it lead to the gcc/egcs split.
That is probably the worst possible solution, although it turned out
OK after a couple of years. Making it turn out OK involved an
enormous amount of time on the part of several individuals who worked
steadily to try to resolve the issue. I recommend against this
approach.
Ultimately the FSF owns gdb.
Ian
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, (continued)
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Jim Blandy, 2004/01/29
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/29
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/29