Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:25:53
Message-Id: 23251.17611.177988.938426@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status by "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)"
1 >>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
2
3 > You are deviating the topic here. Informative GLEPs:
4
5 It is "Informational" not "Informative".
6
7 > * Are enforced.
8 > * Are accepted as a valid argument without trying to check whether
9 > their contents still apply (and no that doesn't mean that it is not
10 > marked as Replaced, Moribund or Deferred, it means that their
11 > contents are actual and relevant).
12
13 Maybe this applies to GLEP 39. That is an exceptional case though,
14 because it hasn't followed the normal GLEP process, but was accepted
15 by a vote of all developers. The GLEP format was only chosen because
16 it was a convenient means to publish it (and I guess also because its
17 predecessor had been published as GLEP 4).
18
19 > If you want to document the current lifecycle of Gentoo Developers it's
20 > a better idea to, for example, go and update the Developer Handbook
21 > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel/Developer_Handbook
22 > Because anything that is stated in a GLEP will be enforced even if
23 > said GLEP is "informative".
24
25 > Having second class contributors isn't either and that is exactly
26 > what this GLEP proposes.
27
28 Do you really read it in that way? We previously had a distinction
29 between developers who could commit to the gentoo-x86 repository and
30 staffers who could not, but IIUC this has largely been dropped. I
31 don't think the intention of mgorny's pre-GLEP is to reinstate that
32 distinction.
33
34 Ulrich