This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [maint] GDB needs more local maintainers
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- To: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- Cc: gdb <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:03:49 -0500
- Subject: Re: [maint] GDB needs more local maintainers
- References: <ro1d6lh1mvf.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
David, I wish it were this simple.
At one point, in the deep dark past the `solution' adopted was to `throw
more maintainers at the problem'. If you think this is starting to
sound like `throwing more programmers at the problem' then it is :-(
One thing that has changed since then is for for developers to recognize
that that while they might have a short (weeks) to medium (months) term
interest in a specific aspect of GDB, they don't have the level of
commitment needed to maintain that body of code.
This is why the maintainers file contains things like: send tricky ones
to person XXX; or person XXX can make changes. While XXX can take
certain liberties it is clear that `the buck' doesn't stop with them. A
more senior maintainer is free to approve/make changes. I would be
wasting my time if I try to chase after them with a patch.
This is also why I try to encourage developers (remember I also act in
that role) to discuss / negotiate technical issues up front. That way
they can be largly pre-approved. Such `fairly obvious' change can
(especially when the issues have been trialed on a branch, but with the
help of a global maintainer and 100% public) then be committed using a
24-48hr rolling schedule (but with with definite timeouts so that
everyone has a chance to clean up the fallout - cf the interps patch).
Finally, this is also why it is important for maintainers to recognize
that it is some times time to let go and move on. Perhaphs dropping
certain areas of responsibility (and picking others up). (On this last
point, it is good to see that all the maintainers are currently doing this.)