GNU bug report logs - #38846
[PATCH 0/4] Move 'HACKING' to the manual, and a proposal for commit access

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#38846] [PATCH 4/4] DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit access.
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:53:56 +0100

Hello!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 17:36, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> +Committers are expected to have had some interactions with you as a
>> +contributor and to be able to judge whether you are sufficiently
>> +familiar with the project's practices.  It is @emph{not} a judgment on
>> +the quality of your work, so a refusal should rather be interpreted as
>> +``let's try again later''.
>
> Cutting the hairs: on one hand "be able to judge" on practices and on
> the other hand "not a judgment on the quality".
> Even if I understand the idea behind (I guess), I do not find it well
> worded, if I might.
> I mean, I bet that "the quality of work" is a strong part when
> motivating the acceptance or the refusal, so yes it is "a judgment on
> the quality of your work" (but not only).
> Quality implies standards and practices; quality can be measured (more
> or less). From my understanding.
>
> Instead of 'quality', I propose 'value' which is more subjective.

I agree that “value” sounds more appropriate here.  Fixed!

>> +However, note that the project is working towards a more automated patch
>> +review and merging system, which, as a consequence, may lead us to have
>> +fewer people with commit access to the main repository.  Stay tuned!
>> +@end quotation
>
> I find inappropriate the "Stay tuned!" in the manual.

Because it’s too informal, or because it’s confusing?  (The former is
fine with me.)

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.