Am 23.03.2010 23:01, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: > Martin v. Löwis <martin <at> v.loewis.de> writes: >> >> Procedurally, I wonder where people got the notion from that you can or >> need to apply for commit access. IIUC, it used to be the case that you >> would be recommended for commit access, by some (more or less senior) >> fellow committer. That person then would work on actually getting commit >> access to the new committer - perhaps by first asking other people in >> private, to avoid any public embarrassment if access is ultimately >> denied. IMO, that committer should then also mentor the new guy, both by >> helping out in difficult cases, and by closely following commits to see >> whether (possibly unstated) conventions are being followed. >> >> I'm not really picking on Brian here specifically, I just want to point >> out that I dislike this (apparent) change in process, primarily because >> of the risk of embarrassment. > > For the record, I'm not opposing any point you are making, but all this is not > clearly written out, and I think that's why people (including me) lately have > been thinking that the candidate for commit rights had to declare himself on > this mailing-list. I don't think it is "wrong" to do it this way -- but of course the hopeful new committer needs to be prepared for a "no". I still would like every new committer to have a "mentor" from the pool of more experienced committers; however for people who are very active on IRC like Brian, there's usually one of the around to review a patch before it is committed. Georg
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4