[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules
From: |
Ian Lance Taylor |
Subject: |
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules |
Date: |
28 Jan 2004 16:03:57 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
> From: Kevin Buettner <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Gdb committee meeting
> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:47:40 -0700
> Specifically, we propose that the "Various Maintainers" section of
> GDB's MAINTAINERS file be replaced by the following:
>
> All non-obvious patches to GDB must be approved. Area maintainers
> can approve patches to the relevant area of GDB; global maintainers
> are treated as if they are area maintainers for all areas of GDB.
> Maintainers are permitted to approve their own patches in areas
> where they have authority to approve others' patches.
>
> If maintainers disagree whether or not a patch should be approved,
> and can't resolve that disagreement via discussion, it shall be
> resolved by a vote. Any global maintainer or area maintainer for
> the relevant area can vote; a majority of votes cast is required for
> approval.
I'm not a gdb maintainer, but I do have a comment. I don't think
voting is a particularly good approach for maintaining a GNU program.
Consensus or tyranny are better methods. If it is impossible for the
relevant maintainers to come to a consensus, and if the tyranny
becomes unacceptable, then there is a problem with the current set of
maintainers. Voting on a particular patch will not eliminate that
problem. It will just paper over it for a time. Perhaps that is the
intent.
Also, the sentence ``All non-obvious patches to GDB must be approved''
is not worded very well. It might be better to say ``All non-obvious
patches to GDB require approval.''
Ian
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Michael Snyder, 2004/01/27
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules,
Ian Lance Taylor <=
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/01/29
Message not availableRe: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Ian Lance Taylor, 2004/01/29
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/29
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Jim Blandy, 2004/01/29