Re: commit access policies

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   I can trust someone to follow agreed rules and not to be malicious.
   That's what it takes for Tier Two.  But that's a far cry from
   trusting them to be technically competent, not make certain kinds
   of mistakes, and the like.

If a person cannot make a decision, they should ask.  That is the only
way to learn in my book.  If they make a mistake, it is simply to fix
it, the whole reason why you have version control systems after all.

   We make that decision as a group, by consensus, and not by just one
   person declaring the new way it will be.

If the group is silent, then only a single person can declare how
something should be done.  As was the case for GNU Mach.  Marcus
wouldn't have said a word if I hadn't poked him on IRC, nor would you.
If only one person cares enough, and nobody even cares enough to even
say anything, that is the only way to decide something.  I don't
regret it, and would repeat it anyday of the week, and would expect
the same thing on a project where I am the maintainer and am simply to
lazy to even answer such a request.

   > So I'd rather see something like a Tier One and a Half group of
   > people who can commit stuff, but they should send a message to
   > bug-hurd with the patch, what it does etc before commiting it
   > (atleast for gnumach, I don't care much for hurd HEAD since the
   > creation of ams-branch).

   This is pointless; anyone who wants can get commit-diffs mailed.

It isn't pointless, a commit-diff doesn't contain a description of
what the patch fixes.  And a commit diff doesn't inline patches, grrr.

   > By the way, could you/Roland give Thomas Schwinge (savannah user
   > name tschwinge) commit access? I trust him enough not to fuck
   > things up, and he has done most of the dirty work when it comes
   > to patches and would be a immense help for me atleast.

   I agree.  I'll poke at it.

Thanks.