[Top][All Lists]

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

Rules for committers? (was Re: [PATCH v2] Fix syslinux_test in out-of-tr

From: Colin Watson
Subject: Rules for committers? (was Re: [PATCH v2] Fix syslinux_test in out-of-tree builds)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2019 17:23:40 +0000
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)

On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:26:30AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Watson <address@hidden>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <address@hidden>

This reminds me: as somebody who has direct GRUB commit access but
hasn't used it much directly since the new maintenance team took the
reins, can I ask if there are established rules written down for how we
should be using our commit access these days?  It seems that it would
probably be more efficient if those of us who have commit access were to
push our own patches once they've been suitably reviewed rather than
relying on the smaller team of maintainers to do it.

Is the rule basically "has a Reviewed-by from a maintainer", or is it
more liberal than that?

Also, it would be good if this sort of thing were written down in
docs/grub-dev.texi rather than just in a mailing list response.  (I'd be
happy to try to polish a mailing list response into a patch to the
developer manual, though.)

Colin Watson                                       address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]