From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24535 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2005 20:08:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 24528 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2005 20:08:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:08:31 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-66-246.inter.net.il [80.230.66.246]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id CAH26011 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:08:28 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:10:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20051125160454.GB29028@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:04:54 -0500) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> <20051125030605.GA20073@nevyn.them.org> <20051125052810.GA23958@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20051125160454.GB29028@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00564.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:04:54 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > You see, I was thinking a couple of days, or up to a week. Two days is awfully too few, IMO. I could think of many reasons why I could be away of my mail for two days. Not everyone hacks GCC and GDB for their living and have an opportunity to read gdb-patches during office hours. > Do you want to be the one to explain to all the latter group "no, > sorry, we can't look at your patch for three weeks"? I think there's a misunderstanding: 3 weeks was suggested as a _timeout_, i.e. an extreme value beyond which we behave as if the responsible maintainer were not there. It is not suggested as the _average_ value. If, several months from now, we see that the average delay is anywhere near 3 weeks, I will be the first one to suggest we do something about it. > I've done the "no, sorry, we need so-and-so to look at this" routine > a fair number of times in the past year, and it's no fun. I think in most, if not all, of those cases, the delay was much longer than 3 weeks. > With just a week, it's easy to give the contributor feedback on the > style et cetera - which often takes a week anyway - while waiting > for comments from the responsible party. That's another misunderstanding: there's no need for the other maintainers to wait before they post comments about the proposed patches, not even for a minute. They could do that right away. One needs to wait only for the approval. Any other comments, style or otherwise, need not wait. In other words, the timeout is not a silence period during which no one can say anything about the proposed patch. It's the max time we give the responsible maintainer to review the patch and make up her mind whether to approve it. > But alternatively, we could use a long timeout and an aggressive > policy for maintainers who time out repeatedly - politely remove > them from responsibility (shift into the authorized section). How > do you feel about that? Responsible maintainers that time out repeatedly should be asked to do better or to step down.