[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules
From: |
Jim Blandy |
Subject: |
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules |
Date: |
29 Jan 2004 14:43:40 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
Ian Lance Taylor <address@hidden> writes:
> David Carlton <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > I don't work on breakpoints, so I hadn't noticed this particular
> > example; the main benefit that I saw of this pruning is that the
> > testsuite had no local maintainers, which all of a sudden meant that
> > any global maintainer could approve testsuite patches, which meant
> > that a _lot_ of testsuite patches went in.
>
> I would have to agree that any global maintainer ought to be able to
> approve patches to any part of the code. That is how both gcc and the
> binutils work, and I think it has proven to be effective in practice.
>
> Mind you, both projects have additional rules, like patches may not
> cause testsuite regressions, and, if they do cause regressions which
> are not fixed, any other global maintainer can revert them freely.
This is exactly the reasoning behind that half of our proposal.
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/29
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/30
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/30
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Elena Zannoni, 2004/01/30
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/29