Re: Unapproved changes


On 3/12/07, Christian Kirbach <christian kirbach googlemail com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:14:49 +0100, William Jon McCann <mccann jhu edu>
> Seems like you made a change to gnome-screensaver yesterday [1]
> without approval.


> As you should know the standard protocol is that all patches require
> approval from the package maintainer.  The procedure for submitting
> patches is detailed in the README.  And anyone who has ever submitted
> a patch knows that I generally review patches promptly.  It is not
> your responsibility to determine what needs changing when and whether
> it requires approval.  Doing this the day before a release is pretty
> uncool.  I'll appreciate your attention to this in the future.

While working on our latest GnomeGoal[2] I ended up in a dilemma.
While some maintainers got upset for being disturbed by proposing such
rather non-intrusive changes on bugzilla[3] and people on #gnome-hackers
suggested to just commit them, some maintainers got upset when I started
committing without proposing patches. This is not an encouraging situation.
I was well aware that the 2.18 tarball preparation was just a day ahead
and worked extra cautious. This certainly does not justify my actions.

Anyways, I apologise for the inapropriate actions taken by me. I hope I
will not cause any future trouble for you or for the release team to which
this issue has been escalated. I appreciate your efforts to quickly review
patches as I believe this strongly encourages contributors.
I hope I can still be a useful Gnome foundation member.

Thank you for your reply.  I'm sure this won't happen again.

Even the most trivial change can have unexpected results:

This would have been quite unfortunately if it had slipped into the
release.  This is one reason why we have a protocol for freeze breaks
and maintainer reviews.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]