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: Brett Gilio <brettg <at> gnu.org>
Cc: guix-maintainers <at> gnu.org, 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 12:59:22 +0100

Hi Brett,

Brett Gilio <brettg <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> +Find three committers who would vouch for you, emailing a signed
>> +statement to @email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org} (a private alias for the
>> +collective of maintainers).  You can view the list of committers at
>> +@url{https://savannah.gnu.org/project/memberlist.php?group=guix}.
>> +
>> +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''.
>
> Maybe it is superfluous, because maintainers have the final say
> anyways. But I think getting vouching approval by three committers and
> one maintainer would be a fine idea.

The way I see it, it’s more about notifying maintainers than it’s about
asking them for approval; they could refuse someone, but the idea is
they’d usually do what other people agreed on.

Cooptation may allow us to scale better: it’s easy for maintainers to
simply lose track of who has been working on what and who should be
given commit access.

Thanks for your feedback,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

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