This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB's roles
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:48:06PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
These are the people on which everyone else depends. They put
themselves to the grindstone ensuring that the GDB wheel keeps turning.
These are the people that do the hard work of reviewing / approving
patches. These people need to be relatively reliable. These people
need to be willing to do the dirty work (such as restructuring) that
can't reasonably be expected of a contributor.
While a core maintainer might also be responsible for certain specific
areas (symtab, threads, remote), they won't cherry pick the patch list
and definitly won't fall asleep at the wheel.
These are responsible for specific areas. Native, target, host and
language maintainers come to mind. Their responsabilities are pretty
clear, while needing to be responsive, they are not on the critical path
like core maintainers. The thing I really like about the target
maintainers is how they, every so often, pop up to do some maintenance
(eliminate something deprecated), and then pop back down again.
[...] The set of core maintainers breaks down into specific
maintainers for core components.
>> While a core maintainer might also be responsible for certain specific
>> areas (symtab, threads, remote), they won't cherry pick the patch list
>> and definitly won't fall asleep at the wheel.
is trying to express this.
core different to maintainers of sub-systems such as the target, native,
language or host. The critical nature of a core maintainer isn't there
though. Typically maintainers of nat, tdep, et.al. code are in a `if it
ain't broke / deprecated, don't fix it' situtation. While fixes/patches
should make it into the next release, they are not so much on the
Contrast that to my current core activity of rewriting frames. I'm on
the hook for everything.
Anyway, the main thing is that my post is a `white paper', a discussion