Re: RFA: [infrun.c] Fix to "nexti".

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>]

Kevin Buettner wrote:
> 
> On Jan 15, 11:36am, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 10:35:27AM -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > >If there is a maintainer for this code please speak up.
> > >
> > >Otherwise I will check this in under the "obvious fix" rule.
> >
> > Do we really have an "obvious fix" rule?  It seems that there is
> > some confusion on this issue.
> 
> We do not have an "obvious fix" rule.  See
> 
>     http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-04/msg00468.html
> 

If you go throughout the list you'll find that it has been mentioned and 
invoked several times in other messages.  It is not well defined though,
and it does not seem to be written anywhere either.

As it is not written what to do when the maintainers do not respond and 
something is broken.  Do we keep downloading rotten code?  These bugs
are very costly in that people waste hours of work because of them.

The message above mentions a problem with regards to small fixes in
codes outside one's maintainership that go wrong.  Sometimes
the original problem is fixed but some other is created.
That is why we use CVS.  The change can be reversed and the maintainer
(when he/she shows up) has a complete record of what has been changed
and
why (in addition to the list archives).

I don't know what is the better/right solution to the problem, but we do
have a problem now with regarding to bug fixes, specially small fix to 
harmful ones.  We do need a fast track to them and even consider
temporary
fixes (properly marked with FIXME and entries in the TODO file).


-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9