Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:07:11 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> > > I absolutely don't want a voting system involved in this process.
> > 
> > Why not?
> 
> Here's the reasons that come to mind:
> 
>   - Voting systems are slow to use; it takes a long time to get
>     a reasonable number of responses from developers.
> 
>   - They require a huge amount of process, structure, and
>     documentation.  I spent a long time getting one adopted
>     for the steering committee, and I'm not eager to do it again.
> 
>   - In any dispute among the GDB developers, the SC is available
>     to resolve the issue.  They hold the final word - that's the
>     FSF's official position.  We don't need to be afraid to
>     invoke the SC; they're here to help.

In other words, you find voting (a) inconvenient and (b) unnecessary.
I thought you had more fundamental reasons; ``absolutely don't want''
seemed to imply that.

> The responsibility for patch review falls to the people
> listed in the "Responsible Maintainers" section, and then to the global
> maintainers for any patch without a responsible maintainer listed.  The
> authority is held by the global maintainers, the responsible
> maintainers within their broad areas, and the authorized committers
> within their possibly narrower areas.
> 
> Is that better?

Sorry, not really.  The difference between responsibility for patch
review and authority for patch review is still not clear: it sounds
like they both rest with the same people, responsible maintainers and
global maintainers.

Perhaps we lack a definition of what is included in responsibility and
what is included in authority.  The words are similar in semantic
meaning.  How about describing the process during which both the
responsibility and the authority are executed?

> No objection to referencing a Wiki (by nature a live document) from
> MAINTAINERS?

Not from me.

> > Do we consider it a as a goal to have someone listed for every "area"
> > (file?) in gdb?
> 
> In my opinion, no.  For instance, right now there's no one active on
> the list of maintainers who is keeping an eye on MI; therefore I don't
> think there's benefit from listing anyone in particular.

Isn't it desirable to have an expert for each area of GDB code?  If
not, why not? what are the disadvantages of that?  (I don't think this
is directly related to the present discussion, but I was too surprised
to read your negative response to Joel's question to let that go
without understanding it.)