1 |
On Friday 03 October 2003 05:46 pm, Tim Yamin wrote: |
2 |
> Brian Jackson wrote: |
3 |
> > Okay, until I can think of a better way to handle the kernel stuff, I'm |
4 |
just |
5 |
> > going to have klieber remove the restriction under one condition... nobody |
6 |
> > commits to sys-kernel without talking to me first unless you have been |
7 |
> > maintaining something. This will have to suffice until I can figure out a |
8 |
> > permanent solution. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > --iggy |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Brian, |
14 |
> |
15 |
> This is in no way a flame or anything, but it seems that people are not |
16 |
> too happy with our new management systems. I don't see a problem with |
17 |
> the system, I see a flaw in the design: with only authorized devs on the |
18 |
> CVS, we can't have much kernel development. With devs having to ask you |
19 |
> before commiting, we also can't have much development because of time |
20 |
> loss. I think it would be much easier for devs to ask x86-kernel where |
21 |
> either you, me, or Jay can reply and thus speed up fixing times. [ Or |
22 |
> even scrap the asking alltogether, but it looks like you aren't too keen |
23 |
> on that... ] |
24 |
|
25 |
Well, I don't want to know every time somebody commits something, I basically |
26 |
just want to know who is working on what. |
27 |
|
28 |
> |
29 |
> Finally, I think that people will continue to flame with these rather |
30 |
> restrictive policies. Because I'm a kernel dev and do pretty much most |
31 |
> of the commits et al. I don't really have any problems with the policy |
32 |
> as it doesn't [yet] restrict me, but I think that people may slowly |
33 |
> begin to get a grunge against you, the kernel team, and possibly even |
34 |
> Gentoo policy? This is only an opinion of what I think other people |
35 |
> think. Currently I'm fine with what's going on, but personally, I would |
36 |
> scrap it and reorganize slightly differently:- |
37 |
|
38 |
Actually, if anything, I think there will be a small group of people that have |
39 |
already made up their minds about me. That's fine, I don't seek universal |
40 |
popularity. The changes I made were, in restrospect, a bit hasty, and they |
41 |
have since been undone. I'll take the lessons I learned from all this, and |
42 |
try not to repeat my mistakes again. This is going to be a huge learning |
43 |
experience for me, and I intend to make the most of it. |
44 |
|
45 |
> |
46 |
> *- Generalized / Architecture kernels can be commited to anybody |
47 |
> *- So can gentoo-sources/xfs/blar blar blar |
48 |
> *- However, if the fixes are not approved and/or not emergency, |
49 |
> x86-kernel has the right to retract changes |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Remember that we need to *let people commit and help* not lock people |
52 |
> out. It only hinders progress... And progress is what you seem to want, yes? |
53 |
|
54 |
Yes we want people to help and contribute, but we don't want somebody who |
55 |
isn't skilled enough to do things that could harm a large user base. Remember |
56 |
the kernel is the foundation of the system, and we don't want somebody to get |
57 |
burnt because we have irresponsible devs. |
58 |
|
59 |
--iggy |
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
> Regards, |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Tim Yamin [plasmaroo] :: Gentoo X86 Kernel Development |
65 |
> plasmaroo@g.o |
66 |
> |
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
Home -- http://www.brianandsara.net |
70 |
Gentoo -- http://gentoo.brianandsara.net |
71 |
|
72 |
-- |
73 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |