Re: approving w32 patches

[Peter Rosin]

Hi!

Den 2010-09-11 23:30 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 07:37:41PM CEST:
>> On 09/11/2010 10:09 AM, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> However...I don't have the authority to push *anything* without
>>> approval, so I *can't* simply say "pushed as obvious".
>>
>> It is ok for anyone with commit access to commit obvious patches
>> without approval.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Also, Gary suggested that you two should be able to approve w32-related
> patches, at least from each other, or if you both agree.  None of the
> Libtool maintainers disagreed.  So please feel free to do so.
> 
> I'll still try to review as much as I can, so if you expect procedural
> or style feedback, you might want to wait, but consider this optional
> in terms of rules.

Years ago I was offered the position of "Libtool Windows maintainer"
(or something such), but declined. I didn't feel qualified, and didn't
feel that I had the time. But another reason is that the role "Windows
maintainer" is very odd. There are very few changes that affect nothing
but Windows, so I'm not sure what the point would be. It's just not
very useful to have the power to approve *only* w32-related changes.
What exactly is meant by w32-related patches? I mean, there are changes
that are w32-related but affect so much more. If I have the power to
approve those w32-related changes too (because they really were
w32-related), then I might as well have the power to approve any change
and simply be one of the Libtool maintainers.

For the record, I will use this w32-related approval trust very
carefully and defensively.

Cheers,
Peter