Re: PATCH keyword, again

[Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas apestaart org>]

El lun, 05-01-2004 a las 12:55, Jeff Waugh escribió:
> <quote who="Murray Cumming Comneon com">
> 
> > In summary, I believe that the neglected-patches problem is a major
> > obstacle to contributing to GNOME. I believe that co-maintainers are the
> > answer, and I think that we (the community/foundation board) should maybe
> > declare that all modules should have >1 maintainer. Single points of
> > failure are bad.
> 
> We, particularly the Foundation Board (who have *nothing* to do with this at
> all), can not impose this kind of arbitrary decision on maintainers. We can
> encourage it, we can say that it's a good idea, etc., etc., but we can't
> enforce or impose it.

I agree with all of Murray's comments except maybe this last one, where
I agree with Jeff that this is hard to enforce.  However, stimulating a
mentality change would be nice though.  It's not like things haven't
ever moved in a given direction due to careful application of mental
torture before.

> (Personally, I don't even think it makes sense for every module. It's a nice
> idea, but we should deal with problems as they arise, and maintainers should
> be the people making the decisions about how to maintain their modules.)

We already noticed we are, as a group, unable to deal with the problem
as it arose.  Murray is giving some very good suggestions about how to
deal with the age-old "PATCH bugs aren't being dealt with", and I think
he makes a lot of sense there.  Enforcing double maintainership might be
taking it too far, but yes, there are potential developers being lost
there by the way PATCH bugs get left in bugzilla.

Thomas


Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
If you go
go for good
don't fucking joke
you know I would
<-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/