This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Maintainer policy for GDB
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at red-bean dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org, kevinb at redhat dot com, cagney at gnu dot org, jtc at acorntoolworks dot com, fnf at ninemoons dot com, kettenis at gnu dot org, Peter dot Schauer at regent dot e-technik dot tu-muenchen dot de, shebs at apple dot com, msnyder at redhat dot com, ezannoni at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:14:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB
- References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:40:56 -0800
> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
>
> I'm a bit concerned that one global maintainer can, by reverting a
> patch, demand to be persuaded, or have the issue kicked to the
> steering committee. If at least (say) four global maintainers comment
> on the patch and (say) 75% or more of those who comment feel the patch
> should go in, shouldn't that be enough to get it in?
We could restrict the revert rule to those cases where a patch was
committed that is not backed up by anyone except the person who
committed it.