Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Andrew STUBBS <andrew dot stubbs at st dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Is everybody currently on the "Write After Approval" list considered
> > to be a Maintainer?  If so, I don't hope adding someone to that list
> > will require explicit permision from the SC.
>
>
> Definitely not.  There's a sentence in the current MAINTAINERS about
> how to become one; we can update that to be clearer with the new
> scheme.  I think being approved by anyone on the global maintainers
> list should be sufficient - that's what it is in practice today,
> anyway.  Sound good to you?

I don't want to get into the general discussion - it isn't really my 
business - but while you are rehashing MAINTAINERS ...

I recently read MAINTAINERS for the first time. From my, not totally 
uninitiated, point of view, I have to say that most of it was fairly 
clear and understandable.

However, I did have trouble on the above point, while trying to 
understand the 'Obvious Fix Rule'. It currently states that all listed 
'maintainers' may invoke the rule. When I queried this on the list I was 
told that it also applies the the 'Write After Approval' list.

I don't want to get into policy, but a clarification of the text would 
be nice. It's just a question of nomenclature really.

Thanks

Andrew Stubbs