This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 09:20:01 +0200
- Subject: Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <559606DB dot 6070600 at redhat dot com> <20150703062020 dot GN1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 02:20:20AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 11:51:55PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > Community,
> >
> > I have attempted to clarify what has always been in effect.
> > The machine maintainers have some level of veto for what goes
> > into their machine port. This allows some amount of control over
> > hardware support and ABI/API additions and removals.
> >
> > The key issue is to balance the project goals and the needs of
> > the users of the particular machine. To do that effectively the
> > machine maintainers have to have some level of veto to add or
> > remove things to the machine they know and understand best.
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS#Machine_maintainers
>
And Carlos could you elaborate what are maintainer responsibilities. We
are talking about prosperity of project as whole. If a maintainer
doesn't respond to any objections raised on list, ignores any consensus
and just commits what he thinks best, closes bugs of his arch as invalid
then it harms a project.
Also maintainer is a person. If whole community reaches consensus about some
feature and only he opposes how do you handle that?
> I know I don't have any standing to change it, but I just want to
> express a sentiment that I think this is bad policy. I can go into the
> details of why if anyone is interested.
>
Could you summarize that in three sentences to see if somebody shares
that sentiment?