This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 0/5] improve trace gap handling
- From: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, "palves at redhat dot com" <palves at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:03:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] improve trace gap handling
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B233FFFBBE5@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Metzger, Markus T
> 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
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