From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3124 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 18:44:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 3105 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 18:44:14 -0000 Received: from yosemite.airs.com (HELO yosemite.airs.com) (205.217.158.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with SMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:44:14 +0000 Received: (qmail 11233 invoked by uid 10); 18 Nov 2005 18:44:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 5152 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2005 18:44:05 -0000 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <8f2776cb0511162244u5274377m70684a364a8a7edd@mail.gmail.com> <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00398.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii writes: > > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:26:18 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > I don't think the words are at all similar in semantic meaning. > > Responsibility is an obligation and authority is a privilege. > > What I meant was that the expression of their meaning is similar: it's > who reviews patches, right? I'm not sure what you mean, but I think that I do understand what Daniel means. If you are "responsible" for patch review in a specific area, it means that you have promised that you will review all patches in that area in a reasonably timely fashion. If you are "authorized" to commit patches in a specific area, it means that you can commit patches without anybody else's approval. And those patches can be your patches or somebody else's patches. But you have not made any promise as to reviewing other people's patches. At least in the U.S., anybody is "authorized" to make a citizen's arrest if they see a crime being committted. But only the police are "responsible" for doing so. If a civilian sees a crime being committed and does nothing, nothing happens to the civilian. If a policeman sees a crime being committed and does nothing, he gets fired from his job. > > This would be easier with Venn diagrams, but they don't lend themselves > > to email very well. Let me give some examples. Afterwards, I will > > attempt to clarify the original descriptions, if these help. > > Sorry, I must be too dumb today. In the example you've given, who has > the ``authority for reviewing patches''? Bob, Joe, Ellen, Adam, Charlie, and Rick are all authorized to review patches. But only Bob and Adam are responsible for it. To be authorized to commit means that you *may* review patches. To be responsible for patch review means that you *must* review patches. Ian