Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:08:51 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: committers?
Message-ID: <20020420000851.GD30156@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5E82 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5E82@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:22:33AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>I'm confused.  You have, on a fairly often basis, lamented the fact
>that no-one other than you and Corinna seems to take responsibility for
>reviewing cygwin patches and changes.  You seem to be indicating that
>you want more input into cygwin.  Yet when I do just that, on a patch
>that is certainly not harmful (while maybe not optimal).  I didn't
>realise I was overstepping boundaries when I checked it in, so I'd
>appreciate it if you could restate those so I don't do so in future.

I don't know if you follow the gdb mailing list but it has the concept
of "maintainership".  We don't have anything as formal here but I
thought it was understood that only Corinna and I have blanket checkin
privileges.

I thought I'd explicitly said that anything thread-related was in your
domain.  And, I may have said that tty related stuff was ok for Egor.

The DLL stuff doesn't fall into any of those categories, though.

>>If one of the functions is obsolete, it should be deleted.  That means
>>that the patch does *not* look good.  It needs to be reviewed.
>
>Fine, back it out (as you did). That's not a big deal. Just to be clear:
>I'm not upset that the patch was reverted, simply confused.

I didn't expect that you would be upset but I was surprised to see that
you'd checked it in.  I thought you were going to analyze the patch
and offer an assessment.  I didn't think you were going to check things
in.  That's how we have always worked in the past, AFAIK.

One reason that I didn't respond to the patch was that I wanted to
investigate the obsolete assertion.  When I saw that you were going
to "review it" I just relaxed and waited for your commentary.

It may be that this is the best that we can do, but AFAICT, we don't
know that yet.  It's always a judgement call between good and good
enough but I'd like to see a little more analysis before we decide
that this patch is the best solution.

cgf