[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules
From: |
Elena Zannoni |
Subject: |
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:42:00 -0500 |
David Carlton writes:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:01:45 -0500, Elena Zannoni <address@hidden> said:
> > David Carlton writes:
>
> Let's see. No, I haven't looked at a RH gdb rpm recently, or ever. I
> wouldn't say that I've observed you, Andrew, and Jeff focusing more on
> GNU/Linux than on other parts of GDB, but obviously I haven't been
> paying attention closely enough. (I have noticed Jeff doing the NPTL
> patches, actually. But is all of Andrew's frame work GNU/Linux
> specific?) I assume that the part of Red Hat that y'all belong to
Andrew's frame work is mostly a volunteer effort, there is no
scheduled item within RH attached to that. I won't deny that Red Hat,
as any other gdb user or vendor will benefit from it. So, ok, that one
is not GNU/Linux specific. The ppc64 work, and the large core file
instead are GNU/LINUX specific. But anyway, kind of irrelevant to the
point.
> somehow has less of a geneological connection with Cygnus than the
> other part of Red Hat, even though all of you worked at Cygnus in the
> past?
Correct
>
> I still am confused. (This is a sincere statement, not grandstanding
> on my part.) There are various splits here:
>
> * People who work in your part of Red Hat, people who work in the
> other part of Red Hat, people who don't work at Red Hat at all.
>
> * People who used to work for Cygnus, people who don't work for
> Cygnus.
>
> It is the case that you and Andrew are both ex-Cygnus employees who
> work for a certain division of Red Hat. But I don't understand what
> weight I, who have no affiliation with Red Hat or Cygnus, am supposed
> to give to that datum.
>
> It seems like Andrew (and you, I guess) are painting this as a
> conspiracy for the other group of Red Hat (do these groups in Red Hat
> have names?) to try to take over GDB somehow. I don't understand how
> you're reconciling that with the fact that four of the eight
> signatories on our proposal have nothing to do with Red Hat, and that
> neither Daniel or I has been particularly shy about complaining either
> in the current discussion or in the thread on this issue in gdb@ last
> year. (Daniel started that thread, I seem to recall.)
>
You are 100% right, there is no way you cannot be anything else but
confused, because you have only partial data in front of you. If you
had all the info that I have maybe you would come to my same
hypothesis. On the other hand, if I had all and only the info you have
(and I don't) I may reach a different conclusion.
> If we want to complain about groups of people within corporations, I
> would say that it is your group within Red Hat that is trying to block
> a change with widespread support elsewhere in the active GDB
> community. I don't sincerely believe that you are trying to block
> this for corporate interests or that you have anything other than the
> best interests of GDB at heart; on the other hand, I also don't
> believe that anybody else participating in this discussion has
> anything other than the best interests of GDB at heart, either.
>
Sorry, but I am not trying to block anything. I was the one who
accidentally stumbled across the knowledge that this group of people
was actively pursuing some 'reform' and I am the one who brought it
into the open, pleading for the 'group' to come forward. As far as
the proposal itself, I have strong reservations about it, yes.
> I repeat my questions:
>
I wish I could answer, honestly. However, you have more information on
how this group was formed than I do. All I have are some facts (that I
know true) but not all the facts.
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, (continued)
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Daniel Jacobowitz, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Michael Snyder, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Elena Zannoni, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules,
Elena Zannoni <=
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Ian Lance Taylor, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Jim Blandy, 2004/01/30
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Michael Snyder, 2004/01/30
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/01/30
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Daniel Jacobowitz, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/01/29
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/29