On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> If we create an emeritus class in committers.py, we also have a whole
> bunch of old (long-webkit-retired) Apple committers/reviewers (ken,
> vicki, cblu, gramps, etc.) which should go there. :) Then the tools
> (including validate-committer-
If we create an emeritus class in committers.py, we also have a whole
bunch of old (long-webkit-retired) Apple committers/reviewers (ken,
vicki, cblu, gramps, etc.) which should go there. :) Then the tools
(including validate-committer-lists) would be less confused by their
presence in ChangeLogs
I don't know if this is in line with what you and Dmitry were thinking, but
here's what I like about a symbolic "emeritus" status: it takes care of the
possible drive-by review problem while also continuing to recognize the person
within the project. It's symbolic, and it feels nicer than just
Unrelated to Dmitry's suggestion, but since I brought up "emeritus
contributors" earlier in the thread, I should explain my usage. The
"emeritus" class proposed in the ancient webkit-reviewers thread about
sunsetting was simply to answer the fact that committers.py has two
purposes:
1. It exists
Interesting. What privileges, if any, would you propose 'emeritus reviewers'
to have?
-Filip
On Apr 9, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Dmitry Titov wrote:
> How about creating an 'emeritus reviewer' status (no r+ power) and let people
> *voluntarily* move themselves to this status? I bet a lot of 'inacti
How about creating an 'emeritus reviewer' status (no r+ power) and let
people *voluntarily* move themselves to this status? I bet a lot of
'inactive reviewers' would do that, since everybody understands the issue
of getting out of sync with current code base. It may have different vibe
though than
On Apr 7, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
> I think 6 months is fine for deactivating SVN accounts. And a full revoke of
> reviewer status after 2 years of no activity sounds reasonable to me. We
> could make it easier to get
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Simon Hausmann
> wrote:
>>
>> And instead of addressing these reviewers directly we are trying to
>> introduce
>> a process to automate this, avoid the confrontation, hope that reviewers
>> accepting bad id
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote:
>
> And instead of addressing these reviewers directly we are trying to
> introduce
> a process to automate this, avoid the confrontation, hope that reviewers
> accepting bad ideas today will instead expire in the future.
>
> It appears to me th
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Poulain
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Timothy Hatcher
>> wrote:
>> > I think 6 months is fine for deactivating SVN accounts.
On Sunday 7. April 2013 18.27.14 Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Timothy Hatcher
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I think 6 months is fine for deactivating SVN account
On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> This seems rather subjective criteria.
Yes, that’s right, the criteria for becoming a reviewer is subjective, and
should remain so.
-- Darin
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
htt
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> I don't really see the big deal with revoking reviewer rights. If you come
> back to the project, make a few good patches and show a good understanding
> of the code base, you just get the rights back.
>
This seems rather subjective criter
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Timothy Hatcher
> wrote:
> > I think 6 months is fine for deactivating SVN accounts. And a full
> revoke of reviewer status after 2 years of no activity
On Apr 7, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
> I think 6 months is fine for deactivating SVN accounts. And a full revoke of
> reviewer status after 2 years of no activity sounds reasonable to me. We
> could make it easier to get
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
> I think 6 months is fine for deactivating SVN accounts. And a full revoke
> of reviewer status after 2 years of no activity sounds reasonable to me. We
> could make it easier to get reviewer status again after a 2 year sunset if
> the perso
I think 6 months is fine for deactivating SVN accounts. And a full revoke of
reviewer status after 2 years of no activity sounds reasonable to me. We could
make it easier to get reviewer status again after a 2 year sunset if the person
becomes active again and shows good judgment still.
— Timot
+1
IMO, as Dirk suggested, the deactivation of the account is more reasonable
unless the reviewership or committership is revoked,
Gyuyoung
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 5, 2013, at 12:00 AM, "Ryosuke Niwa" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is somewhat related to the bulk move of Chromium-WebKit contributors
> to Blink, but we might want to consider sunsetting/expiring committership
> and reviewership.
>
>
On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is somewhat related to the bulk move of Chromium-WebKit contributors to
> Blink, but we might want to consider sunsetting/expiring committership and
> reviewership.
>
> I'm thinking of something like expiring committership/reviw
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 5, 2013, at 12:00 AM, "Ryosuke Niwa"
mailto:rn...@webkit.org>> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
mailto:kenneth.christian...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I am not sure this is really needed. People sometimes disappear from
working on trunk for
Sorry. Wrong address again.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> Neither here nor there, but...
>
> I had interest in sunsetting committers/reviewers in the past. There
> are loads of folks listed in committers.py who haven't committed or
> reviewed in 5+ years. I believe ther
Neither here nor there, but...
I had interest in sunsetting committers/reviewers in the past. There
are loads of folks listed in committers.py who haven't committed or
reviewed in 5+ years. I believe there are some old threads on
webkit-reviewers about such.
I believe the timeout for sunsetting
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Nikolas Zimmermann <
zimmerm...@physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Am 05.04.2013 um 08:19 schrieb Ryosuke Niwa :
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is somewhat related to the bulk move of Chromium-WebKit
> contributors to Blink, but we might want to consider sunsetting/expiring
> c
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <
kenneth.christian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not sure this is really needed. People sometimes disappear from
> working on trunk for extended periods of time due to internal products
> and downstream branches. It has happened multiple t
On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:19 PM, "Ryosuke Niwa" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is somewhat related to the bulk move of Chromium-WebKit contributors to
> Blink, but we might want to consider sunsetting/expiring committership and
> reviewership.
>
> I'm thinking of something like expiring committership/rev
Am 05.04.2013 um 08:19 schrieb Ryosuke Niwa :
> Hi,
>
> This is somewhat related to the bulk move of Chromium-WebKit contributors to
> Blink, but we might want to consider sunsetting/expiring committership and
> reviewership.
> I'm thinking of something like expiring committership/reviwership
On Apr 5, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is somewhat related to the bulk move of Chromium-WebKit contributors to
> Blink, but we might want to consider sunsetting/expiring committership and
> reviewership.
>
> I'm thinking of something like expiring committership/reviwer
I am not sure this is really needed. People sometimes disappear from
working on trunk for extended periods of time due to internal products
and downstream branches. It has happened multiple times to me. That
doesn't mean that I won't come back and start working upstream later.
Also it could be tha
29 matches
Mail list logo
