From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7613 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2005 00:03:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 7603 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Nov 2005 00:03:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cgf.cx (HELO cgf.cx) (24.61.23.223) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:03:06 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 134DC13D354; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:03:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 07:28:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051126000305.GB14956@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii References: <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> <20051125155742.GA29028@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00571.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:53:17PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:57:43 -0500 >>From: Daniel Jacobowitz >> >>>I'm not sure I understand what you mean by ``friction''. Can you >>>elaborate? >> >>I expect that contributors will get annoyed at maintainers who are >>responsible but inactive (because they've added delay), and in return >>those maintainers will get annoyed at contributors for any comments >>they make about the subject. > >We could ask that maintainers immediately acknowledge seeing the RFA, >and tell the contributor the ETA for their review. I think this will >avoid annoyances in many cases: people usually get annoyed that they >don't see any response whatsoever, not because they need to wait for a >few days. I think this is a good idea. I was trying to err in the direction of being overcautious before but I'm comfortable with making the timeout smaller, too. How about if an area maintainer hasn't responded, in some way, to email within a week, the patch is open for a general maintainer to apply? Isn't it reasonable to assume that an area maintainer should be reading gdb-patches on at least a weekly frequency, assuming that they are not out-of-town? If they do this, then they should be able to at least send a "can't review now - will get to this in N days" type of message. If they don't respond to a message then presumably they are not available at all. I guess you could complicate this with more rules about what to do when a maintainer responds but doesn't deliver but I don't think we need to go there for now. cgf