From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5312 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2005 04:56:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 5301 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2005 04:56:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 04:56:04 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-71-23.inter.net.il [80.230.71.23]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id DAR81639 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:56:00 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:17:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: David Carlton CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from David Carlton on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:40:59 -0800) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: 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/msg00539.txt.bz2 > Cc: David Carlton > From: David Carlton > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:40:59 -0800 > > > In other words (and sorry for over-simplification), you ask me to > > assume that everybody else is nice and reasonable, and that, more > > often than not, I will succeed in talking them into accepting my > > opinions. > > I think you will on the matter of documentation, yes. I'm not so sure > about djgpp - there, I suspect people will still listen to you, but > there's probably more scope for reasonable people to disagree. Documentation was just an example, let's not read too much into it. What I really meant is code, since we are all programmers and thus care much more about code than about docs. > My first answer is "you could be wrong about whether a patch is a good > one or not". Personally, I would (strongly) prefer not to adopt a > conflict resolution mechanism where we designate certain people as > always winning arguments about specific areas of GDB. If we designate people who deserve that, why not? Are you saying that you dislike or don't believe in leadership as a matter of principle? > So I'm pretty leery about generalizing from that example. (Which is, > admittedly, unfair of me, given that I started this subthread exactly > by asking you to talk more about that example!) Well, right: we must generalize it, otherwise every example will not teach us anything about the general issue. > I have two different responses to this. > > 1) We could go along with that, and not ask anybody to take > responsibility: we could have a notion of authorized committer > without any notion of responsible committer. That wouldn't bother > me at all; the proposal seems slightly too complex for me as-is, so > I wouldn't mind simplifying it in that way. > > 2) It's not obvious to me that asking people to be responsible is > unfair. And, as long as people have the right to say "no, I don't > want to be responsible" and remain authorized to commit patches, > it's also not obvious to me that it's urgent for us to figure out > whether or not it's fair. Why not leave it up to people to decide > if they want to take responsibility without being given any > additional authority in return? These both boil down to not having anyone responsible. I don't think we should go as far as that.