Re: [g-a-devel]Commit permissions to at-spi ...

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Bill,

	Thanks for your mail - looks like we're getting somewhere:

On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 11:57, Bill Haneman wrote:
> Examination of the source code shows that joint copyright is the
> exception rather than the rule in GNOME at the moment.

	I don't know where you get that from, lots of modules have multiple
copyright owners, in fact - when I added (C) headers to those modules
missing in bonobo (years ago) there was this stonking one:

* Copyright 1999, 2001 Richard Hestilow, Ximian, Inc,
*                      Martin Baulig, Anders Carlsson,
*                      Havoc Pennigton, Dietmar Maurer

	Or perhaps 'linc' where we added the headers recently:

/*
 * linc.c: This file is part of the linc library.
 *
 * Authors:
 *    Elliot Lee     (sopwith redhat com)
 *    Michael Meeks  (michael ximian com)
 *    Mark McLouglin (mark skynet ie) & others
 *
 * Copyright 2001, Red Hat, Inc., Ximian, Inc.,
 *                 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
 */

	etc.

> 	* there is clear consensus in GNOME/FSF as to how/when to add copyright
> attributions;

	http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_8.html

	read the bottom 2 paragraphs.

> 	* my employers or their lawyers tell me to do it (and their
> instructions seem compatible with FSF) ;-)

	I assume the FSF have talked to Lawyers, it's their speciallity.

> > 	What I do care about, is that code that I wrote has stuff committed by
> > you - Bill Haneman - without proper scrutiny, or due thought. That
> > subsequently, I get called upon to figure out the wierd and wonderful
> > problems in the code, and then I can't commit fixes to what is
> > essentially 'my' code. [and it appears that I'm the only one who
> > understands it - ironicaly, despite my efforts to write for clarity].
> 
> I think the less we use phrases like "your" code and "my" code, the
> better off we will be.  

	Well; the semantic meaning is clear; code I wrote, that you refuse to
let me commit fixes to, even 'straightforward ones'; amazingly you have
the gall to want to do this to my code:

On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 13:06, Bill Haneman wrote:
> I'd be happy to look at any patches; maybe Michael wouldn't mind me
> approving straightforward ones. [Michael?]

	Amazing.

>  However I do not think I should be subjected to public flogging
> as a result

	I'd like to get this sorted now; it's been festering too long, I'm
hoping we'll come out of it stronger and working together more
effectively.

> Though I see some merit in going to a more conservative commit
> policy (i.e. all commits of substance require review), it would have the
> effect of significantly slowing our development and bugfixing, and
> probably delay our accessibility solutions.  Asking you to review my
> patches in addition to my reviewing yours will obviously slow things
> down.  

	Grief; that's not what I'd like at all. On the contrary, having a more
enlightened commit regimen can increase scrutiny and not decrease
productivity, indeed - if I felt that I could commit to gnome-mag
without wasting my life going round review cycles, I would have fixed
the build warnings by now in passing.

> * all changes to at-spi are created as patches and posted to
> gnome-accessibility-devel

	Sounds great.

> * maintainers wait for some period of time (say, one day) for comments
> before committing changes that functionally affect code

	I just wouldn't bother with that; it's trivial to back out a change
posted to the list. Only major changes need any degree of discussion
before committing.

> * all patches are subject to maintainer approval. 
>
> The last point is current policy, the first two would codify something
> we should have been doing anyhow, but which are a slightly more
> conservative than most GNOME modules.  

	Well - I just want to be able to commit fixes to the at-spi code,
especially where I wrote a substantial chunk of it - and it seems, you
don't want me committing fixes, you want to review the code, that annoys
me something chronic, and more so when you break it. And I still don't
understand why.

	Regards,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot