Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

First, I support the proposal to grant all global maintainers authority
over all areas of gdb.  And I agree with Eli that we should get a
decision on that specific proposal.

I also agree with Daniel that there is essentially one pool of people
doing both development and patch review.

However, I'm interested in the idea of doing more work on branches
and then merging the branches into gdb, similar to gcc's process.
It takes less patch-review resources to check a whole branch than it
does to check every patch in that branch.  If branches are merged only
at specific development stages, then the patch-review people can brace
themselves for "stage 1 merge madness".  And lastly, it would be a lot
of work to run regression tests on every branch, but it's easy for me
to include whole branches in my regular test runs.

The downside of branches is that they are more work for developers.
Also, sometimes when a bug happens in gcc, I narrow it down to a single
patch ... which is the branch-merge mega patch.  Then I have to do the
narrowing process a second time on the branch.  Lastly, branches have a
tendency to live for a long time and not get merged, which means we pay
all the costs of developing & testing code, but we don't get a product
from it.

Oh, yeah, but I don't want to distract too much from the proposal
already on the table.

My two cents,

Michael C