On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 22:07, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@codewiz.org> wrote: > El Thu, 13-05-2010 a las 20:23 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso escribió: > >> This implies that we are using the old process because nobody has come >> with a concrete proposal for changing it. AFAICS, the discussion has >> stalled because of lack of interest from its proponents. Once we agree >> on specific changes, the process docs in the wiki will be updated and >> it will come into effect. > > Ok, you're clearly in denial :-( > > >> And I'm supposed to track patches in the ml myself? I thought we >> wanted to reduce the load on the maintainers because we had few? > > All the maintainers have to do is reply with: > > Acked-by: name <email> > > Then, the poster will commit the patch or find someone who will. You've > probably seen this happen a few times on sugar-devel too. > > In other projects, the maintainer is the only person who has commit > access to their tree, so they go ahead and merge the patch directly. > > > >> I have noticed that several of the patches that I have reviewed this >> week could have been approved by now if somebody would have >> pre-reviewed them. > > You're obviously disregarding the reviews done in the list. Almost every > patch posted was reviewed (either successfully or not). > > >> > iirc, you were opposed only to let any contributors approve patches for >> > Sugar modules with missing or unresponsive maintainers. >> >> I don't understand what you mean, can you rephrase? > > My initial proposal to unstuck the review process was to let any > existing Sugar contributor approve patches posted by others. > > You'll certainly remember this, because you commented that only those > who are able to appreciate the maintenance burden of a patch are to > decide on it. > > That's fine, as long as there are enough maintainers to review patches > in a reasonable amount of time. If this is not the case, we could tune > our requirements for becoming a maintainer so that we'll have more. > > There are many solutions to the problem of maintainer shortage, just > pick your favorite one. Except, maybe, halting development until the > planets come to the right alignment and maintainers of your liking start > to fall from the sky. > > >> How can you vote before you have a proposal? Or the proposal is "do >> whatever the linux kernel does"? > > Would you like me to open a bug in trac and attach the proposal to it so > you can review it? > > We've discussed the email-based review process once on IRC, in which you > agreed and asked to post the proposal to sugar-devel@, then a second > time on the thread following Sasha's summary. There was also a third > time, on the "Patchwork" thread. In all cases, you claimed to be in > favor for the general idea except for some minor points which I believe > have been addressed. > > Tomeu, please, let's not start over from the beginning.
I'm just asking for someone to propose a set of concrete and coherent changes to the current process, is it really asking too much? I'm sorry but I cannot go through the old threads, ask individuals for clarifications, then draft that new process myself. Regards, Tomeu > -- > // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ > \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ > > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel