From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: jlarmour@redhat.com, Jim Kingdon Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: A patch for toplevel Makefile.in Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 06:08:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20000310125542.A6624@valinux.com> <38CD8CF3.CA81E01@cygnus.com> <38D69095.D3E30D4C@redhat.co.uk> <200003202111.QAA08994@devserv.devel.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00227.html Excerpts from mail: 20-Mar-100 Re: A patch for toplevel Ma.. Jim Kingdon@redhat.com (524*) > > Perhaps we should consider adding a src-patches@sourceware list? > Speaking of which, can the relevant people (gdb maintainer(s), > binutils maintainer, newlib maintainer, whoever) get together and pick > a project leader(s) for the "src" project? At present binutils' (1) Ian L.T. is the defacto maintainer for any stuff in the src directory. I pleed for a cross post so that gdb people at least know something has/is about to change. The GDB people are very unlikely to try to veto any changes. For what its worth I tabled a suggestion (to binutils) to add a src/MAINTAINERS file that would explain top level maintainership issues. > Right now people are sending me things like changes to the modules > file, and that really should be a project issue rather than a > sourceware issue. > P.S. src-patches@sourceware sounds good to me. But I'm not sure who > is supposed to decide these things the way things are now. Could work. Would still need a standard place for people to look to determine what the rules are. enjoy, Andrew (1) Wonder if that quote is correct From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: jlarmour@redhat.com, Jim Kingdon Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: A patch for toplevel Makefile.in Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <20000310125542.A6624@valinux.com> <38CD8CF3.CA81E01@cygnus.com> <38D69095.D3E30D4C@redhat.co.uk> <200003202111.QAA08994@devserv.devel.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00054.html Message-ID: <20000320153100.5M9eWDfNlmsCdKEBJee7UbFINaN9rgEVi21XRIOUzXk@z> Excerpts from mail: 20-Mar-100 Re: A patch for toplevel Ma.. Jim Kingdon@redhat.com (524*) > > Perhaps we should consider adding a src-patches@sourceware list? > Speaking of which, can the relevant people (gdb maintainer(s), > binutils maintainer, newlib maintainer, whoever) get together and pick > a project leader(s) for the "src" project? At present binutils' (1) Ian L.T. is the defacto maintainer for any stuff in the src directory. I pleed for a cross post so that gdb people at least know something has/is about to change. The GDB people are very unlikely to try to veto any changes. For what its worth I tabled a suggestion (to binutils) to add a src/MAINTAINERS file that would explain top level maintainership issues. > Right now people are sending me things like changes to the modules > file, and that really should be a project issue rather than a > sourceware issue. > P.S. src-patches@sourceware sounds good to me. But I'm not sure who > is supposed to decide these things the way things are now. Could work. Would still need a standard place for people to look to determine what the rules are. enjoy, Andrew (1) Wonder if that quote is correct