[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules
From: |
Elena Zannoni |
Subject: |
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:05:27 -0500 |
Jim Blandy writes:
>
>
> Your experiences trying to
> talk with him in this discussion are pretty typical.
This is unfair. You have put somebody in an awkard position, their
back to the wall, you shouldn't expect them to not be on the
defensive. When I found out, I asked that the group talked to Andrew
before it got to this level, but the group refused, and not until 3
weeks later you sent out the proposal (of course, in the meantime
nobody had talked to Andrew).
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, (continued)
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Elena Zannoni, 2004/02/03
- [Gdbheads] steering committee, David Carlton, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Gdbheads] steering committee, Elena Zannoni, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Gdbheads] steering committee, Michael Snyder, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Jim Blandy, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Andrew Cagney, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Michael Snyder, 2004/02/03
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules,
Elena Zannoni <=
Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules, Ian Lance Taylor, 2004/02/04