From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1816 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2005 00:50:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 1807 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2005 00:50:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from brmea-mail-3.Sun.COM (HELO brmea-mail-3.sun.com) (192.18.98.34) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:50:44 +0000 Received: from sfbaymail2sca.sfbay.sun.com ([129.145.155.42]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jAN0og3F019204 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:50:42 -0700 (MST) Received: from kealia.sfbay.sun.com (kealia.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.144.80.16]) by sfbaymail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id jAN0of2f022997; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:50:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by kealia.sfbay.sun.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 8CFDEBA7D; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:50:41 -0800 (PST) To: gdb@sourceware.org Cc: David Carlton Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB References: <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:37:54 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) 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/msg00509.txt.bz2 On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:37:54 +0200, Eli Zaretskii said: >> From: David Carlton >> For example, would you be interested in being responsible for djgpp >> and/or documentation under the proposed new rules? If so, why? > After thinking about this for a while, I concluded that my main > reasons for being interested in becoming a responsible maintainer is > that I'd like to influence the development and maintenance of those > specific areas according to ideas I have. [ Indexing example snipped. ] > Now, under the suggested rules, somebody who is authorized to approve > patches to the documentation could commit changes that don't fit my > plan about indexing, without asking me, right? Yup. > How can I shape the documentation according to my ideas if I don't > have the final say? By acting exactly the way you do now. Anybody paying attention to GDB development knows that you're a very fast and responsive reviewer, that your suggestions are always well-considered and almost always an improvement (no criticism implied, we're all fallible), and that in situations where there's a disagreement, you're willing to discuss the issue in a reasonable fashion. So I'm pretty sure that people would continue to run documentation patches by you in the new system. They probably won't do it quite as consistently as they do now, but they'll do it most of the time, especially the core GDB developers. And (correct me if I'm wrong), I bet that, even in situations where they don't run patches by you in advance, you'll still comment on those patches when they're committed. And in those situations, I bet most of the time people will make the corrections you suggest. I don't think people will make those corrections 100% of the time; and if somebody gets into a habit of not running doc patches by you in advance, maybe you might get annoyed. But I'm pretty sure that you would still have a quite significant role, indeed the primary role, in shaping the documentation under the new system. Of course, I could be wrong. And I'll probably go back into hiding now, anyways. But I wanted to respond to your message, because because I appreciate your taking my question seriously. David Carlton david.carlton@sun.com