This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] fix for infinite recursion in lookup_symbol
- To: David Taylor <taylor at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [patch] fix for infinite recursion in lookup_symbol
- From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:15:03 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200101172157.QAA21576@texas.cygnus.com>
David Taylor writes:
> >Unless there is some opposition from JimB. (if he replies within say,
> >5 hours :-).
>
That was a joke!
Elena
> Radical Idea: You might try calling him...
>
> [I say that because I know that several of the people participating in
> this discussion have Jim's phone number.]
>
> There is no guarantee that he will even see the discussion within 5
> hours, much less have looked over the posting and approved of it.
>
> >From Jim's lack of response, I would guess that:
>
> . he's on vacation, or
>
> . he's not reading email, or
>
> . he's no longer reading gdb-patches
>
> I tried calling him and got voice mail, so it wouldn't surprise me if
> he was on vacation or otherwise occupied. I left him a message.
>
> Can I just suggest that we check it in now and let JimB yell if he
> disapproves? I think enough experienced eyes have looked at this for
> there to be a very small chance that the patch is wrong.
>
> Elena, if I'm reading the MAINTAINERS file correctly, you are a backup
> maintainer for the generic symtab stuff -- so, your approval should
> suffice (unless you feel uncomfortable with it and want Jim to look it
> over, too).
>
> What does everyone think about setting a "vote system" for this kind
> of contingency? We could say that the vote of four gdb engineers with
> write-after-approval == one maintainer with the maintainer having
> absolute authority to remove patches that they think are incorrect,
> of course.
>
> cgf
>
> I don't think we need such a system.
>
> For the generic symtab stuff, the MAINTAINERS file says that Jim
> Blandy is the primary and Elena Zannoni is a backup maintainer. So,
> if Elena approved it, it can go in. And Daniel Berlin can just check
> it in. Ditto if any "Blanket Write Privs" maintainer has approved it.
>
> [Since any Blanket Write Privs maintainer can just check it in, I
> would assume that they could also just "approve it" and then leave the
> actual checkin task to the person that submitted it -- provided he/she
> has checkin privileges.]
>
> In general, I think that if a maintainer is unresponsive, then that
> should be dealt with -- whether it's by politely asking him/her to be
> more responsive, by nagging, by adding additional maintainers to some
> areas, by replacing the maintainer, or something else.
>