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 |