From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5757 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 21:46:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 5750 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 21:46:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:46:23 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EdE3o-00052J-9N; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:46:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051118214620.GA19194@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Ian Lance Taylor , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00407.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:40:40PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:51:35 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org > > > > Eli, if this helps, here's another sort of example: someone who has > > done a lot of work in an area, and who we trust to make changes to that > > area without review, might be listed as "authorized to commit". But > > that person may either be uninterested in reviewing other people's > > changes (unfortunate; I'm not sure how I'd feel about this case in > > practice), not very good at reviewing other people's changes, or simply > > always too busy to review other people's changes. So listing them as > > the responsible maintainer would do a disservice to the rest of the > > community. > > I'm worried that people might not want to take the responsibility upon > them if others, who don't share the responsibility, are allowed to > commit changes nonetheless. > > In other words, if responsibility doesn't come with some unique > authority, who will want such a responsibility? I hope: - People who want to help improve the quality of GDB by adding long-term consistency to some area. - People who feel personally involved in some particular area of GDB development, probably because of large contributions to it. It may not have its own authority, but it does have a certain amount of face-recognition value, too. Anyway, I don't want to write an essay on free software motivations here :-) Here's the counter question: if we force people to take the responsibility, why will they do a good job? Today's example is convincing to me: they won't. Let the people who want to do it take responsibility voluntarily. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC