[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules
From: |
Jim Blandy |
Subject: |
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules |
Date: |
29 Jan 2004 15:54:40 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
Ian Lance Taylor <address@hidden> writes:
> Jim Blandy <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > Having said that, I would say that, if the rules proposed had been in
> > > place for the last year, then GDB 6.0 would have had better support
> > > for C++ nested types and namespaces, and that it would also have had
> > > non-user-visible changes to improve its maintainability
> > >
> > > Off-hand I would not say this is a terrible problem--especially if
> > > some of them are being installed now. I suppose the maintainers had
> > > some reason not to want to install that code as it was written.
> >
> > You're assuming that the maintainers had reviewed the patch, but
> > didn't quite like it. But simply getting patches reviewed in the
> > first place takes too long. This is a bottleneck we think our
> > proposal would improve.
>
> If the problem is ``getting patches reviewed in the first place takes
> too long,'' then the solution is not voting. The solution is having
> somebody with the authority and the responsibility to review patches
> who makes patch review a high priority.
>
> How does voting solve that problem? It seems to me that you are
> essentially trying to use voting to spread out the authority and the
> responsibility. Why not do that directly? Why is voting useful here?
>
> I'm not asking these questions rhetorically. I'd like to hear your
> answers.
Our proposal has two parts: one is to allow global maintainers to
approve changes in areas with local maintainers, and the other is to
introduce a voting procedure. I think the former will help improve
patch approval throughput, by broadening the group of people available
to evaluate a given patch.
Voting won't have any direct impact on that. If it did improve the
quality of discussion, then that would have a nice impact throughout
the project, but that's a secondary effect. And voting is just the
best approach we could think of; any other measure that effectively
encouraged building consensus over my-say-is-final arguments would
work as well.
- [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Jim Blandy, 2004/01/26
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Richard Stallman, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Joel Brobecker, 2004/01/28
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/01/28
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Richard Stallman, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Jim Blandy, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Ian Lance Taylor, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules,
Jim Blandy <=
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Michael Snyder, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, David Carlton, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Ian Lance Taylor, 2004/01/29
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/01/30
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Ian Lance Taylor, 2004/01/30
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/01/30
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Elena Zannoni, 2004/01/30
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/01/31
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Ian Lance Taylor, 2004/01/30
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/01/30