Re: Enter the build sheriff: Jacob.

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Alan,

	I also worry about un-discussed unilateral 'UI' changes that are
apparently being made[1], and with what attitude, but build sheriffs are
really a different issue:

On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 13:26, Alan Cox wrote:
> My code also has a HACKING file. No sherrifs. It's staying that way because
> I don't trust the UI devel people, and because I have other considerations
> than Gnome 2. 

	Well - mercifully the UI people are a) Not build sheriffs, b) have no
chance of being appointed as such and c) most importantly it was hoped
that the name 'Build Sheriff' might convey the scope of the Sheriff's
role - ie. to fix the build.

	We wrote the guidelines quite carefully in order to circumscribe the
role such that a Build Sheriff can only commit build fixes (in that
role). It would be great to go back and read them again.

	Also - the build sheriffs operation is only really applicable near a
release when the code is being regularly snapshotted or tinderboxed etc.
so quite possibly this does not apply to your modules. As and when it
does I hope you will re-consider allowing ( so far only Jacob ) massage
your autotools setup ;-)

	Regards,

		Michael.

[1] - The only solution I see to this is maintainers with teeth, that
revert unapproved changes.

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

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers