| 1 |
> On 5 Jul 2022, at 00:49, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 7:21 PM Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> It had 3 states however: |
| 6 |
>> a) go ahead and touch it, no additional approvals needed |
| 7 |
>> b) please get a maintainer to approve it |
| 8 |
>> c) do not touch it |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> ++ |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Though to be fair b is really no different from what just about |
| 14 |
> anybody can do via a pull request. I don't think most maintainers are |
| 15 |
> going to be hovering between a vs c. I suspect most are going to be |
| 16 |
> divided between a vs b. I guess I could see an argument for c if some |
| 17 |
> package is really finicky and tends to get a lot of repetitive |
| 18 |
> requests for changes that won't work for reasons that might not be |
| 19 |
> obvious, but I'm not sure if that is really a concern. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Right. Difference between b and c might make more sense if c became "run it by another developer as a sanity-check" (who is not necessarily a maintainer of the package, or obviously there's pretty much no point). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> -- |
| 25 |
> Rich |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Best, |
| 28 |
sam |
Archives