Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/04/19/20:09:00
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If one of the functions is obsolete, it should be deleted.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
- Raw text -