Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Joel Brobecker]

> >From my point of view, the key questions to ask are:
> 
> 1) Do we believe that the current lists of local maintainers represent
>    the only people whose judgment we trust on those pieces of code?
>    For example, do we believe that nobody other than Jim Blandy and
>    Elena Zannoni can be trusted to work on symbol table code?  Do we
>    believe that nobody other than Michael Chastain and myself can be
>    trusted with the C++ testsuite?  Do we believe that nobody other
>    than Michael Snyder and Mark Kettenis can be trusted with GDB's
>    threads code?
> 
> 2) Do we believe that the global maintainers, if given the ability to
>    approve patches anywhere as long as nobody else objected, would
>    then start approving patches that would hurt GDB?
> 
> To me, the answer to both of those questions is "no".  If other people
> disagree with me on either of these, I'd like to hear the reasons why.
> If other people agree, then we should change GDB's maintenance
> policies accordingly.

I agree, we should give the global maintainers more leeway to approve
patches in areas covered by local maintainers.

I can find some examples of patches that have received positive
review from a global maintainers but has unfortunately been sitting
around for months for lack of time from the local maintainer. See
for instance:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-12/msg00051.html

-- 
Joel