Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File naming conventions
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@cashpoolcomps.com>
To: arch <gnu-arch-users@gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <874qkf3r0f.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
References: <20041019060152.GC18852@wisq.net>
	<1098311382.11967.35.camel@nemesis.xlii.org>
	<1098313564.5336.29.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<vpqmzyhhrhi.fsf@ecrins.imag.fr>
	<1098319598.5336.46.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<20041021123218.GA30989@fencepost>
	<1098398014.5336.118.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<BF588F2C-23C1-11D9-86E4-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>
	<buo7jpjk21o.fsf@mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
	<200410252034.i9PKYK4b066494@xl2.seyza.com>
	<20041025225439.GB19336@fencepost>
	<200410272159.i9RLxInD074896@xl2.seyza.com>
	<874qkf3r0f.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Message-Id: <1099007564.26442.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:52:44 +1000
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1991
Lines: 46
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 23:34, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:
> 
>     Thomas> The best way I can think of, right now, to make the job of
>     Thomas> our singular reviewer/integrator (Matthew) easier is to
>     Thomas> ask contributors to be very strict and formal about the
>     Thomas> format and management of their submissions.
> 
> It's a rather different situation, but Martin van Löwis of Python
> recently reiterated his offer to review, and if appropriate commit,
> any patch being "pushed" by a developer who reviews ten (10) patches
> to a certain standard.  (Note that "review" means two different things
> here: Martin's review is part of the integration process; the
> "pusher's" review is simply a report that Martin or another Python
> integrator might find useful.)

This is merely formalising what happens anyway - this is the community
way (build up of trust).

It's arguable whether formalising the process of elevation from "mere
random submitter/ user" to "official patch pusher/ lieutenant" is
beneficial or not:

For example, as integrator/ project lead, Tom would either limit his
ability to knock back bad patches from people if he promised that after
10 approved patches, he'd always pull them, or alternatively might be
way too stringent due to fear of losing the ability to reject. Why go
through all that? People who are committed will engender trust
naturally. And good project leads are good at working with people to
(explain why patches are no good | recommend changes | constructively
encourage | confer privileges to those who earn them).

I'm not arguing outright that a formalism is inappropriate, just that I
would personally view it as possibly problematic in ways...

cheers
zen


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/