Thanks to all of you guys! On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Yury V. Zaytsev <y...@shurup.com> wrote:
> How about doing it the other way around from now on? You put the branch > on review, and if there is no vote coming, and no one vehemently objects > on technically substantiated grounds, it can go into master after 4 > weeks, or I can rubber-stamp it if you want to keep the formalities :-) Could we make it more flexible based on the weight of the change? E.g. for an mcview rewrite 4 weeks is totally reasonable. For user-visible changes such as dimming wrapped lines (3546) it's also okay for me to wait that long for input, to give you time to speak up against it or come up with alternative approaches. For minor changes, such as a followup bugfix in the viewer (e.g. 3531) I wouldn't want to wait for more than a couple of days; let's say a week at most. Does this sound okay? > The obligations anyone here has are at best the "moral" ones. There is > no signing of contracts involved in getting commit access. Only I'd > expect you not wiping the repository after a tequila party, feeling > responsible for fixing stuff you happened to break, being careful with > the private keys if you need/want access to more infra, etc. and in > general keep the pills handy. I don't think this would be a problem, > would it? This is of course obvious. (I didn't sign anything for gnome-terminal either, at least I can't remember... I might have had to click once on some legal stuff, but definitely nothing more than that.) Thanks a lot, egmont _______________________________________________ mc-devel mailing list https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
