[commit] MAINTAINERS changes

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

As previously discussed on gdb@, I have checked in the new MAINTAINERS file.
That means it's official - although I expect it's going to take some time
for us to get used to it, so be forgiving on those timeouts, please!
And I'm not going to try to apply this retroactively to already submitted
patches.

I've also pinged maintainers; more about that on gdb@ in a moment.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

2006-01-20  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>

	* MAINTAINERS: Overhaul.

Index: MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/MAINTAINERS,v
retrieving revision 1.334
diff -u -p -r1.334 MAINTAINERS
--- MAINTAINERS	17 Jan 2006 23:42:28 -0000	1.334
+++ MAINTAINERS	20 Jan 2006 20:50:00 -0000
@@ -1,10 +1,117 @@
 		GDB Maintainers
+		===============
+
+
+		   Overview
+		   --------
+
+This file describes different groups of people who are, together, the
+maintainers and developers of the GDB project.  Don't worry - it sounds
+more complicated than it really is.
+
+There are four groups of GDB developers, covering the patch development and
+review process:
+
+  - The Global Maintainers.
+
+    These are the developers in charge of most daily development.  They
+    have wide authority to apply and reject patches, but defer to the
+    Responsible Maintainers (see below) within their spheres of
+    responsibility.
+
+  - The Responsible Maintainers.
+
+    These are developers who have expertise and interest in a particular
+    area of GDB, who are generally available to review patches, and who
+    prefer to enforce a single vision within their areas.
+
+  - The Authorized Committers.
+
+    These are developers who are trusted to make changes within a specific
+    area of GDB without additional oversight.
+
+  - The Write After Approval Maintainers.
+
+    These are developers who have write access to the GDB source tree.  They
+    can check in their own changes once a developer with the appropriate
+    authority has approved the changes; they can also apply the Obvious
+    Fix Rule (below).
+
+All maintainers are encouraged to post major patches to the gdb-patches
+mailing list for comments, even if they have the authority to commit the
+patch without review from another maintainer.  This especially includes
+patches which change internal interfaces (e.g. global functions, data
+structures) or external interfaces (e.g. user, remote, MI, et cetera).
+
+The term "review" is used in this file to describe several kinds of feedback
+from a maintainer: approval, rejection, and requests for changes or
+clarification with the intention of approving a revised version.  Review is
+a privilege and/or responsibility of various positions among the GDB
+Maintainers.  Of course, anyone - whether they hold a position but not the
+relevant one for a particular patch, or are just following along on the
+mailing lists for fun, or anything in between - may suggest changes or
+ask questions about a patch!
+
+There's also a couple of other people who play special roles in the GDB
+community, separately from the patch process:
+
+  - The GDB Steering Committee.
+
+    These are the official (FSF-appointed) maintainers of GDB.  They have
+    final and overriding authority for all GDB-related decisions, including
+    anything described in this file.  The committee is not generally
+    involved in day-to-day development (although its members may be, as
+    individuals).
+
+  - The Release Manager.
+
+    This developer is in charge of making new releases of GDB.
+
+  - The Patch Champions.
+
+    These volunteers make sure that no contribution is overlooked or
+    forgotten.
+
+Most changes to the list of maintainers in this file are handled by
+consensus among the global maintainers and any other involved parties.
+In cases where consensus can not be reached, the global maintainers may
+ask the Steering Committee for a final decision.
+
+
+			The Obvious Fix Rule
+			--------------------
+
+All maintainers listed in this file, including the Write After Approval
+developers, are allowed to check in obvious fixes.
+
+An "obvious fix" means that there is no possibility that anyone will
+disagree with the change.
+
+A good mental test is "will the person who hates my work the most be
+able to find fault with the change" - if so, then it's not obvious and
+needs to be posted first. :-)
+
+Something like changing or bypassing an interface is _not_ an obvious
+fix, since such a change without discussion will result in
+instantaneous and loud complaints.
+
 
 	     GDB Steering Committee
+	     ----------------------
 
 The members of the GDB Steering Committee are the FSF-appointed
 maintainers of the GDB project.
 
+The Steering Committee has final authority for all GDB-related topics;
+they may make whatever changes that they deem necessary, or that the FSF
+requests.  However, they are generally not involved in day-to-day
+development.
+
+The current members of the steering committee are listed below, in
+alphabetical order.  Their affiliations are provided for reference only -
+their membership on the Steering Committee is individual and not through
+their affiliation, and they act on behalf of the GNU project.
+
 	Jim Blandy (Red Hat)
 	Andrew Cagney (Red Hat)
 	Robert Dewar (AdaCore, NYU)
@@ -17,8 +124,36 @@ maintainers of the GDB project.
 	Todd Whitesel
 
 
-			Global Maintainers
-			   (alphabetic)
+		  Global Maintainers
+		  ------------------
+
+The global maintainers may review and commit any change to GDB, except in
+areas with a Responsible Maintainer available.  For major changes, or
+changes to areas with other active developers, global maintainers are
+strongly encouraged to post their own patches for feedback before
+committing.
+
+The global maintainers are responsible for reviewing patches to any area
+for which no Responsible Maintainer is listed.
+
+Global maintainers also have the authority to revert patches which should
+not have been applied, e.g. patches which were not approved, controversial
+patches committed under the Obvious Fix Rule, patches with important bugs
+that can't be immediately fixed, or patches which go against an accepted and
+documented roadmap for GDB development.  Any global maintainer may request
+the reversion of a patch.  If no global maintainer, or responsible
+maintainer in the affected areas, supports the patch (except for the
+maintainer who originally committed it), then after 48 hours the maintainer
+who called for the reversion may revert the patch.
+
+No one may reapply a reverted patch without the agreement of the maintainer
+who reverted it, or bringing the issue to the GDB Steering Committee for
+discussion.
+
+At the moment there are no documented roadmaps for GDB development; in the
+future, if there are, a reference to the list will be included here.
+
+The current global maintainers are (in alphabetical order):
 
 Jim Blandy			jimb@redhat.com
 Kevin Buettner			kevinb@redhat.com
@@ -34,52 +169,73 @@ Elena Zannoni			ezannoni@redhat.com
 Eli Zaretskii			eliz@gnu.org
 
 
-			Various Maintainers
+			Release Manager
+			---------------
 
-Note individuals who maintain parts of the debugger need approval to
-check in changes outside of the immediate domain that they maintain.
-
-If there is no maintainer for a given domain then the responsibility
-falls to a global maintainer.
-
-If there are several maintainers for a given domain then
-responsibility falls to the first maintainer.  The first maintainer is
-free to devolve that responsibility among the other maintainers.
+The current release manager is: Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
 
+His responsibilities are:
 
-                        The Obvious Fix Rule
+    * organizing, scheduling, and managing releases of GDB.
 
-All maintainers listed in this file are allowed to check in obvious
-fixes.
+    * deciding the approval and commit policies for release branches,
+      and can change them as needed.
 
-An "obvious fix" means that there is no possibility that anyone will
-disagree with the change.
 
-A good mental test is "will the person who hates my work the most be
-able to find fault with the change" - if so, then it's not obvious and
-needs to be posted first. :-)
 
-Something like changing or bypassing an interface is _not_ an obvious
-fix, since such a change without discussion will result in
-instantaneous and loud complaints.
+			Patch Champions
+			---------------
 
+These volunteers track all patches submitted to the gdb-patches list.  They
+endeavor to prevent any posted patch from being overlooked; work with
+contributors to meet GDB's coding style and general requirements, along with
+FSF copyright assignments; remind (ping) responsible maintainers to review
+patches; and ensure that contributors are given credit.
+
+Current patch champions (in alphabetical order):
+
+	Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
+	Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@debian.org>
 
-		Can Commit Without Approval
-		       (alphabetic)
 
-The following developers CAN COMMIT changes (and hence approve
-patches) to specific sections of GDB:
 
-	Andrew Cagney (powerpc, powerpc-linux)
-	Hans-Peter Nilsson (cris)	
-	Jeff Johnston (ia64)
-	Joel Brobecker (mips)
-	Kei Sakamoto (m32r)
-	Kevin Buettner (powerpc)
-	Orjan Friberg (cris)
-	Randolph Chung (pa)
-	Ulrich Weigand (s390)
+			Responsible Maintainers
+			-----------------------
+
+These developers have agreed to review patches in specific areas of GDB, in
+which they have knowledge and experience.  These areas are generally broad;
+the role of a responsible maintainer is to provide coherent and cohesive
+structure within their area of GDB, to assure that patches from many
+different contributors all work together for the best results.
+
+Global maintainers will defer to responsible maintainers within their areas,
+as long as the responsible maintainer is active.  Active means that
+responsible maintainers agree to review submitted patches in their area
+promptly; patches and followups should generally be answered within a week.
+If a responsible maintainer is interested in reviewing a patch but will not
+have time within a week of posting, the maintainer should send an
+acknowledgement of the patch to the gdb-patches mailing list, and
+plan to follow up with a review within a month.  These deadlines are for
+initial responses to a patch - if the maintainer has suggestions
+or questions, it may take an extended discussion before the patch
+is ready to commit.  There are no written requirements for discussion,
+but maintainers are asked to be responsive.
+
+If a responsible maintainer misses these deadlines occasionally (e.g.
+vacation or unexpected workload), it's not a disaster - any global
+maintainer may step in to review the patch.  But sometimes life intervenes
+more permanently, and a maintainer may no longer have time for these duties.
+When this happens, he or she should step down (either into the Authorized
+Committers section if still interested in the area, or simply removed from
+the list of Responsible Maintainers if not).
+
+If a responsible maintainer is unresponsive for an extended period of time
+without stepping down, please contact the Global Maintainers; they will try
+to contact the maintainer directly and fix the problem - potentially by
+removing that maintainer from their listed position.
 
+If there are several maintainers for a given domain then any one of them
+may review a submitted patch.
 
 Target Instruction Set Architectures:
 
@@ -288,6 +444,27 @@ readline/		Master version: ftp://ftp.cwr
 
 tcl/ tk/ itcl/		Ian Roxborough		irox@redhat.com
 
+
+		Authorized Committers
+		---------------------
+
+These are developers working on particular areas of GDB, who are trusted to
+commit their own (or other developers') patches in those areas without
+further review from a Global Maintainer or Responsible Maintainer.  They are
+under no obligation to review posted patches - but, of course, are invited
+to do so!
+
+	Andrew Cagney (powerpc, powerpc-linux)
+	Hans-Peter Nilsson (cris)	
+	Jeff Johnston (ia64)
+	Joel Brobecker (mips)
+	Kei Sakamoto (m32r)
+	Kevin Buettner (powerpc)
+	Orjan Friberg (cris)
+	Randolph Chung (pa)
+	Ulrich Weigand (s390)
+
+
 			Write After Approval
 			   (alphabetic)
 
@@ -413,19 +590,6 @@ Wu Zhou						woodzltc@cn.ibm.com
 Yoshinori Sato					ysato@users.sourceforge.jp
 
 
-
-			Release Management
-
-The current release manager is: Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
-
-His responsibilities are:
-
-    * organizing, scheduling, and managing releases of GDB.
-
-    * deciding the approval and commit policies for release branches,
-      and can change them as needed.
-
-                        
 			Past Maintainers
 
 Jimmy Guo (gdb.hp, tui)				guo at cup dot hp dot com
@@ -447,8 +611,3 @@ Folks that have been caught up in a pape
 
 Jim Kingdon					jkingdon@engr.sgi.com
 David Carlton					carlton@bactrian.org
-
---
-
-(*) Indicates folks that don't have a Kerberos/SSH account in the GDB
-group.