| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've been managing my own overlay and a few private ones for a few |
| 3 |
> years now, all while using catalyst to build more or less customized |
| 4 |
> Linux systems for me and for others. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I dive into bugzilla when a bug bites, and I'll usually generate a |
| 7 |
> patch. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Am I actually developing for Gentoo Linux already? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I think most would say yes - you just don't have official recognition, |
| 12 |
or commit access. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think that this would be a benefit of moving to git - anything which |
| 15 |
reduces the need to have commit access but do useful work is a good |
| 16 |
thing in my mind. Tools like gerrit and github will also facilitate |
| 17 |
this. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That said, none of this will eliminate the need to have more people |
| 20 |
merging commits. Right now our model is that the dev who merges the |
| 21 |
patch is the one to blame when things go wrong. While that works |
| 22 |
better than a "merge whatever you want - blame the contributor" model, |
| 23 |
there does need to be some balance. There are tons of patches in |
| 24 |
bugzilla for stuff that isn't well-maintained, and perhaps a little |
| 25 |
more freedom to improve packages without having to take full |
| 26 |
responsibility for them would be a good thing. The all-or-nothing |
| 27 |
model too often turns out to be nothing. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives