mc (hammer) - I can touch this! (Time to go to sleep I guess...)
e. On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Egmont Koblinger <egm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
