Re: build sherrif-ery - nautilus-media fails to configure

[Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>]

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:27:41 +0100, Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 22:00 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 21:51:19 -0500, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 15:50 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 20:13 +0000, Andy Balaam wrote:
> > > > > Can anyone be a sherrif?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, and to answer this more explicitly: anyone can be a nag-style
> > > > sheriff (like you have just been- kudos to stepping up), but in the
> > > > strictest sense of the word, a sheriff is empowered to also revert
> > > > changes or make fixing commits, which is privilege no one at all has
> > > > right now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I nominate Luis for sheriff!
> >
> > This would make more sense if I knew a damn thing about auto* :) In
> > most of the cases I've seen in the past few weeks, the only thing I
> > would have been able to do was revert the commit. Then again, that may
> > be the kind of sheriff more maintainers are comfortable with.
> 
> Is this really an enormous problem? In many cases you can probably get
> help from people you trust (given your judgement of the problem vs the
> solution), and in other cases you can just revert.

Outside of the nautilus-media issue, the current approach (nag and do
nothing else myself) seems to be working just fine- I don't really see
a need to be more proactive/'sheriff'-y about it.

I might add I also don't want to really do it- I have, honestly,
better things to do with my life :)

Luis