This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [maint] sim and common
- From: Ben Elliston <bje at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>,Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>,Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>,Chris Demetriou <cgd at broadcom dot com>,"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common
- References: <3C85A44B.email@example.com>
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Andrew> I'm wondering if it would be helpful for sim specific
Andrew> maintainers (at least for sim/common based sims) to have
Andrew> implicit approval/write permission on the sim/common
Why do you feel it would be helpful? I don't think there has been any
evidence that patch approvals for sim/common has been a bottleneck or
indeed even a problem for anyone to date.
Andrew> Which reminds me, Stephane Carrez should really be listed as
Andrew> the m68hc11 maintainer. Unless, that is, GDB is going to
Andrew> assume that a GDB target maintainer implicitly maintains the
Andrew> corresponding SIM.
I'm happy enough with that idea, provided that there is a mechanism
for people to be listed explicitly as sim maintainers, overriding the
corresponding GDB maintainer for that port. There are potential sim
maintainers who are capable of working on the sim but might not be
willing/able to work on GDB as well.