[g-a-devel]Re: Build sheriff permission ...

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 10:25, Michael Meeks wrote:
> 
> Hi you guys,
> 
> 	If you're reading this, you own a module that is not playing ball well
> [ probably by accident ] with the rest of the project. To be fair I just
> fixed 'at-poke' as well. It seems word of this sort of thing hasn't
> spread to the a11y community.

FYI, at-spi already contains the following wording regarding "Build
Sheriff" commits:

---

"   "Build Sheriff" patches are welcome and are exempt from the
   normal approval process, provided:

  (a) it can be confirmed that the Solaris build does not regress,
      as many of our users are based on Solaris and SPARC;
  (b) the build patches are, generally speaking, not controversial.

  At any rate we appreciate being told where we've screwed up, so
  let us know if you encounter a significant issue.  "

---

I'll add a shorter build sheriff notice to gnome-mag.

-Bill

> 
> 	Anyhow; to facilitate a wider adoption of A11y code - and to enable it
> to be snapshotted easily, it is really important to add the following
> lines to a 'HACKING' file in your cvs module:
> 
> "	Build sheriff commits are welcome - in accordance with the
> relevant build sheriff constraints. "
> 
> 	That is - if you agree with the guidelines, which are these:
> 
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers-readonly/2002-March/msg00051.html
> 
> 	[ They should be on developer.gnome.org too, but it seems some 
> 	  mis-management somewhere made that not happen. ]
> 
> 	It'd be really great to see this in:
> 
> 	gail, at-spi, gok, gnopernocis, gnome-mag
> 
> 	As at the time of inititation of this process, there is still only 1
> build sheriff who is Jacob Berkman, a man of taste, discretion etc. who
> knows more of autotools than the average maintainer will ever know :-)
> 
> 	Regards,
> 
> 		Michael.
> 
> -- 
>  mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>