1 |
On 10/27/2016 11:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700 |
3 |
> Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
>>> [snip] |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling |
9 |
>>> it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was |
10 |
>>> supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they |
11 |
>>> either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just |
12 |
>>> never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties. |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions' |
15 |
>>> are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or |
16 |
>>> special rules to cover them. |
17 |
>>> |
18 |
>>> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement |
19 |
>>> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a |
20 |
>>> straightforward solution to make it global. |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a |
24 |
>> regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing |
25 |
>> contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> Just a thought. I like where you're going with the idea. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Anything put on the git workflow page automatically becomes rejected by |
30 |
> most of the developers and users for being a whim of hasufell ;-). |
31 |
> |
32 |
That seems unproductive. What has been proposed in its stead? |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
36 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
37 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |