Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Michael Snyder]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> 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.


Voting is not the central theme of the proposal.
Voting is for a last resort conflict resolution, not
for everyday approval.  The central point of the proposal
is that blanket write maintainers have the authority to
approve patches in any part of gdb, even if there is an
area maintainer assigned to that part.


> The solution is having
> somebody with the authority and the responsibility to review patches
> who makes patch review a high priority.


If one person with that authority is good, isn't several better?