This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: cagney at gnu dot org, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 23:09:51 +0200
- Subject: Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips
- References: <4183BD22.3090905@gnu.org> <01c4bed6$Blat.v2.2.2$fa231b20@zahav.net.il> <41856ECA.2060701@gnu.org> <01c4bfcd$Blat.v2.2.2$299ef260@zahav.net.il> <20041101051257.GA11134@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 00:12:57 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> There is no maintainer for this area, and Andrew is entitled to
> approve patches himself, so an RFA (request for approval) seems
> unnecessary.
Where do you see such a rule? It's not in MAINTAINERS, AFAICT.
The rule that we do have is that if a certain maintenance area has no
responsible maintainer, the _responsibility_ falls to the head
maintainer. But my interpretation of this is that the responsibility
is for reviewing patches, not for applying own patches without asking
for approval. That's because it doesn't make sense to me to decide
that whenever some area maintainer steps down, the head maintainer is
automatically promoted to be an expert in that area. If you were not
an expert in some area, the fact that the expert disappeared doesn't
make you an expert, just the one who is burdened with more duties.