Re: [patch] fix for infinite recursion in lookup_symbol

[David Taylor <taylor at cygnus dot com>]

    Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:12:29 -0500
    From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>

    On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 04:09:27PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
    >
    >I would like to see this in. There are too many divergences already.
    >
    >Fernando, JimI can one of you commit this?
    >
    >Unless there is some opposition from JimB. (if he replies within say,
    >5 hours :-).

Radical Idea: You might try calling him...

[I say that because I know that several of the people participating in
this discussion have Jim's phone number.]

There is no guarantee that he will even see the discussion within 5
hours, much less have looked over the posting and approved of it.

From Jim's lack of response, I would guess that:

. he's on vacation, or

. he's not reading email, or

. he's no longer reading gdb-patches

I tried calling him and got voice mail, so it wouldn't surprise me if
he was on vacation or otherwise occupied.  I left him a message.

    Can I just suggest that we check it in now and let JimB yell if he
    disapproves?  I think enough experienced eyes have looked at this for
    there to be a very small chance that the patch is wrong.

Elena, if I'm reading the MAINTAINERS file correctly, you are a backup
maintainer for the generic symtab stuff -- so, your approval should
suffice (unless you feel uncomfortable with it and want Jim to look it
over, too).

    What does everyone think about setting a "vote system" for this kind
    of contingency?  We could say that the vote of four gdb engineers with
    write-after-approval == one maintainer with the maintainer having
    absolute authority to remove patches that they think are incorrect,
    of course.

    cgf

I don't think we need such a system.

For the generic symtab stuff, the MAINTAINERS file says that Jim
Blandy is the primary and Elena Zannoni is a backup maintainer.  So,
if Elena approved it, it can go in.  And Daniel Berlin can just check
it in.  Ditto if any "Blanket Write Privs" maintainer has approved it.

[Since any Blanket Write Privs maintainer can just check it in, I
would assume that they could also just "approve it" and then leave the
actual checkin task to the person that submitted it -- provided he/she
has checkin privileges.]

In general, I think that if a maintainer is unresponsive, then that
should be dealt with -- whether it's by politely asking him/her to be
more responsive, by nagging, by adding additional maintainers to some
areas, by replacing the maintainer, or something else.