| 1 |
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700 |
| 2 |
Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > [snip] |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling |
| 8 |
> > it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was |
| 9 |
> > supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they |
| 10 |
> > either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just |
| 11 |
> > never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions' |
| 14 |
> > are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or |
| 15 |
> > special rules to cover them. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement |
| 18 |
> > somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a |
| 19 |
> > straightforward solution to make it global. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a |
| 23 |
> regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing |
| 24 |
> contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Just a thought. I like where you're going with the idea. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Anything put on the git workflow page automatically becomes rejected by |
| 29 |
most of the developers and users for being a whim of hasufell ;-). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
| 34 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives