Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Michael Snyder]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Michael Snyder <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> > Voting is not the central theme of the proposal.
> > Voting is for a last resort conflict resolution, not
> > for everyday approval.  The central point of the proposal
> > is that blanket write maintainers have the authority to
> > approve patches in any part of gdb, even if there is an
> > area maintainer assigned to that part.
>
>
> Then let me turn it around to you and ask why you need voting.  What
> problem does it solve?

Frankly, it was just meant to tidy up a loose end "what-if" that came up 
in the discussion.  "What if one maintainer says a change is OK, but 
another says it isn't, and after some discussion they can't agree?"

It really wasn't meant to be a pivotal point, it was just added
for completeness.  I don't think anyone is that attached to it.


> I'd be happier if you answered on the list, rather than to me
> directly.

Sorry, wrong "reply" button.


> > > The solution is having
> > > somebody with the authority and the responsibility to review patches
> > > who makes patch review a high priority.
> >
> > If one person with that authority is good, isn't several better?
>
>
> Yes.

That is really the pivotal point.