| 1 |
On Sunday 12 April 2015 11:59:09 hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04/11/2015 01:54 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > 1. What does proxy-maintainers lack in comparison to sunrise |
| 4 |
> > exclusively. The immediate question is whether sunrise should be |
| 5 |
> > migrated to proxy-maintainers, so this specific comparison is |
| 6 |
> > important. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> proxy-maintainers lack: |
| 9 |
> 1. a repository with a usable VCS |
| 10 |
> 2. an actual review workflow... @proxy-maintainers are just some sort of |
| 11 |
> backup committers. it's not a hub for contributors to gather, discuss, |
| 12 |
> get reviews and improve skills |
| 13 |
> 3. means to ensure the tree doesn't break |
| 14 |
> 4. actively look for and educate potential developers, even before the |
| 15 |
> recruitment process |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Oh my. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Can you please stop being such a drama queen and accept reality every now and |
| 20 |
then? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> So it should, if at all, be the other way around: dissolve |
| 25 |
> proxy-maintainers, fix the sunrise workflow and make it the contribution |
| 26 |
> hub again it once was. But I'm not actually advocating for that. I think |
| 27 |
> the sunrise concept doesn't work anymore. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
proxy-maint is the least broken process we have. Unless you have constructive |
| 30 |
criticism I don't see why you waste time whining about everything. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Sigh. |
Archives