| 1 |
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:24:59 -0800 |
| 2 |
"W. Trevor King" <wking@×××××××.us> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> If it doesn't need to get updated, then it probably already started |
| 5 |
> out explaining the consensus ;). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That is a guess, you can look this up in past patches. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> You spend time if you want to spend time and add whoever you feel |
| 10 |
> moved to add. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
We discuss whether to make it policy to add involved people. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I think the spirit of Alexander's original proposal [1] |
| 15 |
> was “here is a common syntax for crediting collaborators, we might |
| 16 |
> want to use it” not “ye non-conformers will be hounded unto the ends |
| 17 |
> of the Earth”. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Alexander is clear that best practices could be followed and that it is |
| 20 |
a proposal, note the use of the particular words "should be"; discussing |
| 21 |
spirits is more appropriate in another place than this mailing list. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> If you are submitting v2 of a patch, and feel a desire |
| 24 |
> to credit reviewers / testers with this syntax, I think that's |
| 25 |
> considerate of you. If you are committing someone else's patch to |
| 26 |
> master, and want to record the folks who acked it on the list to |
| 27 |
> distribute responsibility, that's fine too. If you want to use |
| 28 |
> another syntax, or not do any of this at all, it's still fine by me |
| 29 |
> ;). However, if a consistent syntax already exists, I see no reason |
| 30 |
> not to use it when it suits your purpose. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
We discuss here whether to make it policy to use the same syntax. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
With kind regards, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 38 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 41 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 42 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives