On 28/10/16 08:34, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 10/27/2016 11:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700 >> Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling >>>> it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was >>>> supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they >>>> either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just >>>> never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties. >>>> >>>> I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions' >>>> are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or >>>> special rules to cover them. >>>> >>>> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement >>>> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a >>>> straightforward solution to make it global. >>>> >>> Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a >>> regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing >>> contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow. >>> >>> Just a thought. I like where you're going with the idea. >> Anything put on the git workflow page automatically becomes rejected by >> most of the developers and users for being a whim of hasufell ;-). >> > That seems unproductive. What has been proposed in its stead? > I thought monsieurp had written a git flow page for users of the g-p-m project as they are chief users of this process. Is that only under the G-P-M wiki page .. might be worth doing some harmonisation there and/or poking the g-p-m folks?
MJE
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
