| 1 |
Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Comments? |
| 3 |
>> ~mcummings |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
> As a non-dev with not a lot of free time, I applaud this suggestion. |
| 6 |
> However, my core fear is the potential for it becoming subject to |
| 7 |
> abuse, and people insisting on repeatedly uploading patches that are |
| 8 |
> not actually wanted / necessary for the project, despite the package |
| 9 |
> maintainer saying 'dude , stop' |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
Well presumably if the maintainer has said it in bugzilla/ whichever |
| 12 |
tracking mechanism you use, then it's on record. If it's transparent, it's |
| 13 |
hard for people to argue about it other than on the merits. And users and |
| 14 |
devs share a common interest in getting the software working optimally. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Basically, if a non-maintainer wants maintenance rights, how do they |
| 17 |
> go about attaining them? , an automated service, or some vetting |
| 18 |
> process? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
Dunno what the procedure might end up becoming, but my understanding is |
| 21 |
commit right to the sunrise overlay, from where a dev has to commit it to |
| 22 |
the main tree. It seems like a logical extension of sunrise, and i am sure |
| 23 |
there are stats on who has submitted what to sunrise in the past. So there |
| 24 |
is a baseline for whom to invite to become <insertNameOfNewPost>s. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> How do we go about handling the problem with the predicted increase in |
| 27 |
> collisions? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
I guess it depends on what the predicted increase would be. Maybe one of the |
| 30 |
infra bods can enlighten us? (I'm guessing you'd take the writes of the |
| 31 |
users automatically selected and see how many collisions there would have |
| 32 |
been with the ebuilds they contributed to. A patch that got accepted |
| 33 |
wouldn't count, of course, if it were possible to track same,) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> Is CVS fast enough / flexible enough for such a massive change in users? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> (forgive me if I've made a misunderstanding, but im a SVN man, not a |
| 38 |
> CVS'er ) |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
Well aiui CVS is a lot less resource-intensive than SVN and additionally the |
| 41 |
proposal was to utilise existing infra slightly differently. It doesn't |
| 42 |
sound like more workload for the servers involved. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
TBH it sounds more like the kernel model than anything; each individual is |
| 45 |
responsible for the commits they make with their signature. If they have |
| 46 |
come from elsewhere is irrelevant (apart from a legal viewpoint.) Code |
| 47 |
responsibility lies with one, when one presses send. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
kk or <Enter> |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives