Re: commit access policies

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

> I might not understand what Tier Two is for, but I'm not suggesting a
> wiki-style way of development (where anyone can get tier two access).
> I'm suggesting a middle ground, where a tier two doesn't need to ask a
> tier one to fix a bug, a compilation error or maybe add a new simple
> feature without sending a small note to bug-hurd with the patch and a
> description of what the thing does.  But _if_ a tier one says that the
> patch is wrong, then the tier two should fix it accordingly.  Basiclly
> giving tier twos a bit more slack, and some of the responsibility.
> And a tier one just checks that things are ok.  New tier twos would
> still have to ask about anything before committing.

I think the problem is specifically in a case like this one, where
people who are able to verify patches are not overflowing with free
time.  We cannot run the risk of destabilizing patches building up
because nobody had the time to check things that were already checked
in.

So your explanation here makes me only more sure that we shouldn't
change what we're doing in this regard, precisely *because* of the
lack of extra time on the part of patch-checkers.