Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Elena Zannoni]

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.