Jan 30, 2023, 17:49 by mich...@niedermayer.cc: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see >> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I >> definitely haven't! >> We may complete the list at a later date. >> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what >> everyone expects. >> >> Patch attached. >> >> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 >> 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch >> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Lynne <d...@lynne.ee> >> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access >> >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember >> while looking at the recent git log. >> We may complete the list at a later date. >> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >> before it was changed at the start of this year. >> > > I dont object to you adding a list of people with commit acccess though i > dont think its needed or that useful. > But adding a list that is incomplete, sorted in a odd way and doing so in a > commit that states a past rule which i dont think was true, seems not > ideal > > ATM there are I think 117 keys that have write access (some may belong to > the same developers) and also over 100 maintainers in that MAINTAINERs file > I think. I didnt try to count them too precisely. But the numbers are not > that disimilar. The added list is quite abit more different >
My intention was to make this complete after it's accepted (or not, if someone doesn't want to be known for having push access). > Also iam not sure this commit will change that much. People who do not want > write access neither before nor afterwards will not send a ssh key so wont get > write access. And people who want write access will push for it and > probably noone will object. Theres the between people who dont push for > it and noone else would push either they might no longer receive write > access. Iam not sure if that is better. > > It makes things more involved but whats really bad is that this extra > step is mainly in your mind, its not docuemnted. > Do i add someone to that new list when i give him write access or do > i give someone write access when a patch adding her is approved. Or do > i just ignore that list because its incomplete anyway ? > > I assume the intend is the 2nd one but How would a contributor know > to add herself to that list and what about people who are quite humble > and who would not push for it yet at the same time would benefit from > write access ? > How would anyone know to maintain something they should add themselves to the list of maintainers? A second list of those with push access doesn't add more roadblocks, it's just a separate list, that's all. You wouldn't have to add yourself to maintainers to get push access if you don't want to. As for those humble, I do see your point, but it's a one-line diff change, and it can be done in the same commit adding yourself to maintainers, it's not a 2-page personal statement about values. > ATM every maintainer automatically receives the right for write access > After this patch its made more difficult, i cant just post a patch adding > random people either Someone would have to convince them first that they > should post a patch to add themselfs. > > So what i really dislike on this change is the potential stumbling blocks > it throws before new developers. > > Its important that one has write access to the repository one works in > In FFmpeg that work happens on git master so write access to that is > important for anyone actively working on it. > In other places work and review might happen in developers own repositories > and they get merged regularly. In that case write access to master is not > needed > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".