From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
To: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>,
Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Maintenance of top-level files
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:35:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3cd92a64-5dd4-d2fc-7355-eaed64c27121@polymtl.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YTrl854dWOPm+5TF@squeak.grove.modra.org>
On 2021-09-10 12:58 a.m., Alan Modra via Gdb wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 09:23:49AM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> My question then, is what are peoples thoughts on how these files
>> should be managed?
>
> The question I take it really is: Who has authority to approve
> patches, and at least some responsibility to respond to bug reports
> related to these files?
>
> I don't think we (binutils + gdb) should take the position that these
> files are owned by gcc, and thus authority and responsibility fall to
> the listed gcc build machinery maintainers. That doesn't seem fair or
> reasonable. The situation with top level files is very different to
> say, libiberty, where binutils+gdb is unlikely to want changes that
> are completely uninteresting to gcc. With top level config*, Make*,
> libtool.m4, lt* and so on we often want changes that aren't
> interesting to gcc, and vice versa. A model where changes are
> installed first into one repository and then backported to the other
> makes sense, I think.
Agreed. They generally are not too controversial changes anyway.
> So do we want someone appointed top-level build machinery maintainer
> in binutils+gdb? If so, I nominate Simon Marchi if he's interested.
> Why Simon? Because in digging through top-level logs, he's the most
> recent (2018) person to act as a maintainer of those files, commit
> d0ac1c4488. Before that, there was Ralf Wildenhues in 2010.
I'm not sure I have enough knowledge about how the top-level build
machinery works. Unless we starting having patches that are
particularly controversial, I think it's ok if all binutils and GDB
global maintainers can approve patches to the top-level. We should
still make sure that patches that touch these files are sent to both
lists.
Simon
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-10 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-08 8:23 Andrew Burgess
2021-09-08 20:18 ` Mike Frysinger
2021-09-10 4:58 ` Alan Modra
2021-09-10 14:35 ` Simon Marchi [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3cd92a64-5dd4-d2fc-7355-eaed64c27121@polymtl.ca \
--to=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
--cc=amodra@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew.burgess@embecosm.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).