| 1 |
On 04/07/2022 17.27, David Seifert wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ultimately, all these things really matter when only the defaults |
| 3 |
> change. Turn-right-on-red in the US is such a thing, because unless |
| 4 |
> otherwise stated, it's the norm. Knowing our devbase, with roughly 75% |
| 5 |
> mostly AWOL and barely reading the MLs, I don't think this idea will |
| 6 |
> bring about the desired change. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
This sounds like you assume that the majority of Gentoo devs are OK with |
| 9 |
other people making changes to their packages. This very well could be |
| 10 |
true, but without an indication you never know if the maintainer feels |
| 11 |
this way. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Instead, we should really just go for |
| 15 |
> the <non-maintainer-commits-disallowed/> tag, because my feeling is that |
| 16 |
> the default will be that most maintainers don't mind non-maintainer |
| 17 |
> commits, except a select few territorial ones. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It appears that we have at least two options here: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
A) Establish that the default is non-maintainer-commits-welcome, and |
| 22 |
introduce a <non-maintainer-commits-disallowed/> metadata element. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
B) Declare the default to be unspecified and introduce two metadata |
| 25 |
elements: <non-maintainer-commits-welcome/> and |
| 26 |
<non-maintainer-commits-disallowed/>. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think you are proposing A) here, but please correct me if I am wrong. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Personally I would tend to B). But I have no strong opinion on this, as |
| 31 |
long as some kind of signalling is established. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
How do others feel about this? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
- Flow |
Archives