Re: [gdm-list] Branch update

["William Jon McCann" <mccann jhu edu>]

On 10/5/07, Brian Cameron <Brian Cameron sun com> wrote:
...
> I'm flexible about how we move forward with maintaining GDM.  I am also
> comfortable with you being an official co-maintainer of the GDM head
> branch.
>
> For the time being, I am comfortable with providing patches to you
> for approval rather than committing changes myself.  While the code
> is still under development, it makes sense for one person to be in
> control of how changes are made.  And it makes sense for that person
> to be you.
>
> As maintainer, I've always tried to defer to community consensus rather
> than thinking that any one person has "the final word".  I'd prefer if
> we follow a process in situations where there is disagreement between
> the maintainers and/or other engineers who have made significant
> contributions to GDM.
>
> I think such disagreements should be brought up in this gdm-list public
> forum and discussed.  I think the various stakeholders should make an
> effort to come to a reasonable agreement that meets needs without
> negatively impacting the code or design.  I think this is basically
> how I've tried to manage GDM to date.
>
> Having said that, I think that based on your contributions to the
> code that your opinion would be valued with more authority than the
> opinions of others.  But I would hope that if we enter a situation
> where everybody other than yourself wanted GDM to move in a certain
> direction that you wouldn't be completely inflexible or resistant
> to compromise.
>
> Does this seem reasonable?

In general, yes.  We'll deal with the specifics for each case as needed.

> > ...
> >> I noticed you deleted all the docs from the old branch, which is another
> >> area where older stuff is probably lurking around.  The docs probably
> >> need rewritten anyway.  I've written much of the docs, so if there are
> >> parts that are still useful, then those bits can still be used.  I don't
> >> need my contributions to be associated with any Queens.
> >
> > That would be awesome!  This is one area where I would love for you to
> > take the lead.  I will be spending most of my time working on getting
> > the code up to snuff.
>
> I'm happy to take the lead with the documentation.  It's an area where I
> have tried to add value to the GDM project, and I would like to make
> sure that the documentation remains of reasonable quality.
>
> That said, I'll probably need help from you to document the aspects of
> the code that you know best, such as how everything works with D-Bus.

Great!

> > So to summarize, my proposal:
> >
> > Let's:
> >  * Branch for 2.20.
>
> The 2.20 branch is already created.
>
> >  * Delete everything from trunk.  I mean everything.
> >  * In a separate operation move everything from the branch into trunk.
> >  * Add both of our names to MAINTAINERS
> >   * Share maintainership duties
> >       - you take lead in all aspects of releases
> >       - you take lead in security and interface analysis
> >       - you lead organizing the documentation team
> >       - you lead working with the translation teams
> >       - you lead all aspects of Solaris support
> >       - I will devote most of my time to hacking on the core design
> >       - I will have final say over changes to core code (as primary author)
> >       - I will delegate this responsibility as necessary
> >
> > I think this is close the optimal distribution of responsibilities.
>
> That seems reasonable.  I'd like to add that Lukasz, if he can find
> time, will probably be the lead of figuring out gdmsetup.
>
> > Does this sound reasonable?  If so, then let's do it.
>
> I think it would make sense for you to send an email to gnome-hackers
> and desktop-devel-list to let everyone know that you are now a
> co-maintainers of GDM and that people should beware that GDM 2.21 is
> going to be quite different than what everyone is used to.  The email
> probably should contain references to the Wiki to this email discussion
> thread.  This way people in the community can be a bit more clear on
> what we are proposing to do.
>
> Let's give people a few days to comment and raise concerns.  Assuming
> there aren't any serious objections, then please go ahead and make the
> changes you propose above to make GDM SVN head contain the new code
> for the upcoming 2.21 release.
>
> Sound reasonable?

Yes.  A few days have passed and I've attempted to:

1. svn copy svn+ssh://mccann svn gnome org/svn/gdm2/trunk \
svn+ssh://mccann svn gnome org/svn/gdm2/tags/PRE_SWITCH_TO_GOBJECT_BRANCH

2. svn del svn+ssh://mccann svn gnome org/svn/gdm2/trunk

3. svn mv svn+ssh://mccann svn gnome org/svn/gdm2/branches/mccann-gobject \
   svn+ssh://mccann svn gnome org/svn/gdm2/trunk

4. svn copy svn+ssh://mccann svn gnome org/svn/gdm2/trunk \
svn+ssh://mccann svn gnome org/svn/gdm2/tags/POST_SWITCH_TO_GOBJECT_BRANCH

However, step 2 fails with:
svn: 'pre-commit' hook failed with error output:
A valid MAINTAINERS file is required. See
http://live.gnome.org/MaintainersCorner#maintainers (5351-1)

I've emailed svnmaster gnome org for help.  I've also asked if if it
is possible to rename gdm2 to gdm.  I'll let you know when I get a
response from svnmaster.  And then I'll send a message to D-D-L.

Thanks,
Jon