Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Elena Zannoni]

Michael Snyder writes:

 > Well, and that sort of brings us to the current discussion.
 > Yesterday you posted a list showing that you had made almost
 > twice as many commits in 2003 as the next ten people *combined*.
 > You're a very prolific and hard-working engineer, Andrew,
 > but it's possible that that's not the only explanation
 > for this.


Sorry, I am confused. Do you think that Andrew has more privileges
than any other global maintainer? All of his symbol table or sh
patches have gone through a review.  And so have his patches to other
areas of maintainership. I do recall Kevin asking him to revise his
patches for the ppc, for instance.

If you are under this impression, than I can understand that you could
see him as unfairly taking over gdb development.

I think that the cases where he commits something w/o waiting for
approval are the obvious patches, and if those patches end up being not
so obvious after all, usually a stink gets raised (see the deprecated
STREQ thread).

So, I think you are wrong in your reading of why he has more patches.
It is just because he is more active. You too, as a global maintainer,
can have the same honor if you so choose. As a metter of fact, look
at how much Mark kettenis has been doing recently.

The only difference that I see between his role and, say, yours or
mine, is that if you or I don't choose to review patches (from
non-global maintainers) to unmaintaned areas he must do it. So I would
say that he has more responsibility, not more power.

elena