Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Michael Snyder <address@hidden> writes:

> That being said -- I'm not sure how the role of "head maintainer"
> ever came about, or what its domain and limits are.  The MAINTAINERS
> file has never even mentioned the role of head maintainer.

Well, I probably invented the term, based on what I was hearing.
Sorry about that.

If Andrew is not the head maintainer, if all the maintainers are
equal, then why do people feel that he has so much power?

Earlier, Eli said:

> It is true that the global maintainers could in theory solve the
> problem, but approval of a patch which Andrew objects is not something
> I'd expect to see, nor something I myself would like to do.  I'm sure
> you understand why.

Well, in the light of the above, I guess I don't understand why.

For the binutils, Nick Clifton is the acknowledged head maintainer,
and there are seven other people with blanket write privileges, of
whom I am one.  If Nick objected to a patch of mine, I would not check
it in.  But if any of the other people with blanket write privileges
objected to a patch of mine, I would consider their arguments, and, if
I were sure that I was right, I would check it in anyhow.  For that
matter, people have checked in patches to the binutils over my
objections.

Blanket (or global) write privileges doesn't mean veto power.

Ian