Re: [patch] fix for infinite recursion in lookup_symbol

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>]

David Taylor writes:

 >     >Unless there is some opposition from JimB. (if he replies within say,
 >     >5 hours :-).
 > 

That was a joke!

Elena


 > 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.
 >