Re: Reenabled account for Tomasz Kloczko
- From: Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com>
- To: veillard redhat com
- Cc: gnome-private gnome org, gnome-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: Reenabled account for Tomasz Kloczko
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:26:01 -0600
Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com> writes:
> BTW, what's the final decision on this ? I remember hearing that
> the HACKING file was the right one, but that for example gnome-libs
> used a different file/scheme.
The GNOME Programming Guidelines specifies README.CVS; it does not
list HACKING. However, it does tell you very explicitly to *ask* the
maintainer before committing to a module to which you do not
contribute frequently.
I can update the programming guidelines to include HACKING as the
general way to figure out how to contribute to a module.
(Gnome-libs's HACKING tells you what you need to build the goddamn
thing. The file that tells you to be a good citizen in
README.cvs-commits instead... We need to get this fixed.)
> So where should we detail the CVS access policy ? I think we can decide
> this even if there is no consensus on whether ACLs should be deployed or
> not).
The CVS commit policy is in the GNOME Programming Guidelines:
if (you are a frequent contributor and the maintainer trusts you)
go_ahead_commit ();
else
mail_the_maintainer ();
Federico
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]