Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Jim Blandy <jimb at red-bean dot com>]

[I've dropped individuals from the CC list that I know to read gdb@ regularly.]

On 11/17/05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > I have always been in favor of the concept that global maintainers should be
> > able to approve patches anywhere, without having to wait for area
> > maintainers.  If we don't trust each other enough for that, then we need to
> > work on the trust and/or the list of maintainers.
>
> The problem is, trust is built by following rules which are initially
> intentionally restrictive.  As the trust grows, the restrictions can
> be gradually lifted.

That's not the pattern I'm familiar with.  An organization can have
strict rules, and as trust is built up, people will tolerate those
rules being bent or set aside in specific cases.  But I've never seen
the restrictions be explicitly lifted as a result of that.  We have
restrictions in place that many of GDB's contributors don't like, and
which are definitely hampering progress.

> By contrast, you suggest to begin with unconditional trust.  We
> already tried that in the past, and we saw what happened.  Why try
> that again? why assume that what happened once, cannot happen again?

You need to be more specific.  I agree with your characterization that
we trusted too much in 1999 that everything would just work out, but I
don't see that this proposal makes the same mistake.  What particular
passages concern you?  What are their consequences?