Re: A patch for toplevel Makefile.in

[Jason Molenda <jason@molenda.com>]

Two notes,

On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 06:30:25PM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote:

>   modules file
>      Obviously changes to this file should not go through Jim
>      Kingdon, or any central place.  If you understand the file
>      format (or can cut-and-paste existing entries), modify it.
>      If it scares you, get someone who does understand it to help 
>      you.  Be prepared to fix it if you do break it.

Obviously someone in the binutils group should not be farting around
with the gdb module, for instance.  I'm talking about new modules
being added or someone modifying their own project's module config.




> I mean, say a problem comes up in the top-level configure.in, and
> someone who is using gdb has the problem.  They send a patch to
> gdb-patches.  The gdb maintainers think it looks reasonable, why
> not check it in?  


Allow me to provide my own counter argument. :-)  I cited one case
where two people with write access disagree; here is a better one.
Say a volunteer wants to rewrite the top-level files to be
autoconf/automake based.  Rah rah, we're all for that.  Who should
he work with?  Who should he talk to about special cases, about
canadian crosses?  This -- the most drastic example I can think of --
is a case where some kind of central figurehead could be of use.


J