Re: [PATCH 0/5] improve trace gap handling

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 10/27/2016 04:03 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Metzger, Markus T
> <markus.t.metzger@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Don't we want patches to be peer reviewed in general?  Or are you
>> saying that I can and should make changes to record-btrace without
>> review?
> 
> No, I am not saying that... :-)  Peer review is always welcome.  As we
> said in MAINTAINERS:
> 
> "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."
> 
> You, as a "responsible maintainer" for btrace, can/should review all
> patches in the area of btrace, including patches written by yourself.
> 
> I think all these rules are of a purpose of having a healthy code base
> with an efficient way.  It helps nothing to block patches for three
> months due to lack of peer review.
> 
> You must post your patches for review, and you have the authority
> to approve the btrace bits.  You can leave your patches for a period
> of time, one week for example, in mail list to collect comments and
> objections.
> 

I definitely agree.  It's because we trust you and think you're
competent that we made you btrace maintainer.  :-)

FWIW, I've quickly skimmed the patches now looking for something
that I might even have input on, and I found nothing.  Regarding
style and following GDB practices, I think your patches are
consistently perfect.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves