Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:57:34AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>- the other other perenial - old dormant / inactive developers
> >>
> >>There is still no clearly documented process for addressing this. 
> >>Adding more developers to an area appears to be approach used by GCC? 
> >>It's only a short term solution.
> >
> >
> >No, GCC's approach is to have active global maintainers who can and do
> >approve patches in otherwise dormant areas.
> 
> Which papers over the problem - a growing list of dormant developers 
> apparently responsible for a given area.  However, true, in the short 
> term, patches do get reviewed.

I disagree that this is a papering-over, based on five years of
observing GCC maintenance.

Also, looking at the current list of GCC maintainers, they are mostly
active and reviewing patches in their listed area.  I would say the
MAINTAINERS file was at least 85% accurate and active, which is better
than we manage.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer