| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:17:54AM -0700, Joshua Jackson wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is one of those times where I think we all need to take a step |
| 3 |
> back and really look at what we are doing. Gleps were designed for a |
| 4 |
> purpose, and this is not one of them. This is an issue of common |
| 5 |
> sense. We all know or at least I hope so that most users should not be |
| 6 |
> given access to modify bugs. ArchTesters should as they've taken the |
| 7 |
> ebuild quiz and its one of the few things they get as an added benefit |
| 8 |
> for having committed time and effort to earn the trust of the |
| 9 |
> Developer community. As well it might be considered common sense that |
| 10 |
> someone who only works on java as a contributor but helps with patches |
| 11 |
> and advice commonly should be able to do things with java only |
| 12 |
> bugs...as it allows them to further help out as the productive member |
| 13 |
> of the community they are. |
| 14 |
Not possible for reasons I've described in other replies to the thread. |
| 15 |
Bugzie privs includes all bugs, not just a subset. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> As such I really feel that we've gone overboard on what should be |
| 18 |
> considered an enhancement proposal. I would think that for the council |
| 19 |
> as well as the developers would bring common sense to this as well. |
| 20 |
> How exactly does a glep such as this enhance Gentoo as a whole? That |
| 21 |
> should be something we all ask ourselves before we tell someone to |
| 22 |
> draft a glep or consider writing one. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Genstef, I'm not poking at you directly, please don't feel assaulted. |
| 25 |
One thing about this is that genstef won't take a no for an answer. |
| 26 |
Seeing that we couldn't come to an agreement on this (recruiters/devrel |
| 27 |
on one side / genstef on the other) and that I still believe this |
| 28 |
affects all devs I thought it was best for genstef to glep it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
That way we could all have our say and it could be publically decided |
| 31 |
whether it's a good idea or not. You could argue that a normal |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev discussion could easily serve the same purpose but I fear |
| 33 |
that genstefs initial mail would have been even more vague than his |
| 34 |
proprosed glep. Adding a bit of structure to it seemed like a good |
| 35 |
thing and I'd argue that the small bit of structure have helped keep |
| 36 |
the discussion on track. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Regards, |
| 39 |
Bryan Østergaard |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives