From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18955 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2005 08:36:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 18946 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2005 08:36:14 -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 08:36:13 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-211-74.inter.net.il [83.130.211.74]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id CAF42875 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:36:03 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20051125052810.GA23958@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> (message from Christopher Faylor on Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:28:10 -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> 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/msg00557.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:28:10 -0500 > From: Christopher Faylor > > How about a month for the timeout period? That won't accommodate a long > vacation but it should be enough for most scenarios. > > Would adding a rider that says "Two global maintainers can agree to > apply the patch after two weeks of nonresponse" complicate things too > much? I would hate for an important patch to languish just because > someone was on vacation. How about if we start from something simple, like 3 weeks of timeout and no other conditions? Then, a year or so from now, we could analyze the results and see if we need to augment the rules.