Hi Ludo, Ian, guixen, qua 21 ago 2024 às 22:54:31 (1724291671), l...@gnu.org enviou: > > > Ian Eure <i...@retrospec.tv> writes: > > > >>> > >>> I believe the usual way of doing something like this is via teams (see > >>> ./etc/teams.scm ). > >>> > >> > >> I’m not sure whether/how well this mechanism works for non-committers. > > > > I believe it should. AFAIK pretty much all it does is to automatically > > add the team members onto CC list when running `git send-email'. > > Yes, it works whether or not one has commit rights, and I agree that it > could be helpful here.
Should I send a patch adding myself to the team? What is expected from team members? > > At the same time it is not really meant as a general notification > > system, so usefulness for you depends on whether some committer will > > merge the commit adding librewolf team (with you in it). > > Ian, what about teaming up with other Firefox derivative maintainers? > I’m thinking notably of André and Clément who’ve worked on Tor Browser > on Mullvad Browser, Mark H Weaver who’s been maintaining IceCat, and > perhaps Jonathan who’s been taking care of IceDove (Cc’d)? > > Of course, each of these package is different but they’re in the same > area so it probably makes sense to share reviewing efforts here. I was reticent on this mainly because (i) I have never actually used LibreWolf and I don't have a clear picture of it besides it being a "Firefox + Arkenfox - Mozilla Branding" [1](?); (ii) I expect that most of these security (aka urgent) patches will land on the same day on a regular basis for all 4 browsers and given Mullvad and TorBrowser sources will be late in the game, I'll probably not be able to do such a timely (yet again, urgent) review, which could add to Ian's frustration, instead of relieving it; and (iii) AFAIUI, LibreWolf moves at a faster pace, which adds to my concern of not being able to keep up in the long run. That being said, given those patches have remained unreviewed for weeks in a row, I guess I can at least help improve the current situation and give commiters some more confidence that a given patch will not break hell loose when commited and so I'm willing to help with these reviews. However, I cannot promise to maintain it if/when Ian's lead happens to go missing. One question in that regard: is there any difference between reviewing through QA's web interface and sending mail commands to debbugs' control? Is any of them preferable? I'd rather use the mail interface if that's enough. Cheers. 1. No disrespect meant to the project or its users, just my own current cluelessness exposed. I'll read the docs on it to understand it better though.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
