Re: mc and me

[Egmont Koblinger <egmont gmail com>]

mc (hammer) - I can touch this!

(Time to go to sleep I guess...)


e.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Egmont Koblinger <egmont gmail com> wrote:
> Thanks to all of you guys!
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Yury V. Zaytsev <yury shurup com> wrote:
>
> > How about doing it the other way around from now on? You put the branch
> > on review, and if there is no vote coming, and no one vehemently objects
> > on technically substantiated grounds, it can go into master after 4
> > weeks, or I can rubber-stamp it if you want to keep the formalities :-)
>
> Could we make it more flexible based on the weight of the change?
> E.g. for an mcview rewrite 4 weeks is totally reasonable.  For
> user-visible changes such as dimming wrapped lines (3546) it's also
> okay for me to wait that long for input, to give you time to speak up
> against it or come up with alternative approaches.
>
> For minor changes, such as a followup bugfix in the viewer (e.g. 3531)
> I wouldn't want to wait for more than a couple of days; let's say a
> week at most.  Does this sound okay?
>
> > The obligations anyone here has are at best the "moral" ones. There is
> > no signing of contracts involved in getting commit access. Only I'd
> > expect you not wiping the repository after a tequila party, feeling
> > responsible for fixing stuff you happened to break, being careful with
> > the private keys if you need/want access to more infra, etc. and in
> > general keep the pills handy. I don't think this would be a problem,
> > would it?
>
> This is of course obvious.  (I didn't sign anything for gnome-terminal
> either, at least I can't remember... I might have had to click once on
> some legal stuff, but definitely nothing more than that.)
>
>
> Thanks a lot,
> egmont