[Top][All Lists]

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

[bug#38846] [PATCH 4/4] DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit acce

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: [bug#38846] [PATCH 4/4] DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit access.
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:53:56 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)


zimoun <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 17:36, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
>> +Committers are expected to have had some interactions with you as a
>> +contributor and to be able to judge whether you are sufficiently
>> +familiar with the project's practices.  It is @emph{not} a judgment on
>> +the quality of your work, so a refusal should rather be interpreted as
>> +``let's try again later''.
> Cutting the hairs: on one hand "be able to judge" on practices and on
> the other hand "not a judgment on the quality".
> Even if I understand the idea behind (I guess), I do not find it well
> worded, if I might.
> I mean, I bet that "the quality of work" is a strong part when
> motivating the acceptance or the refusal, so yes it is "a judgment on
> the quality of your work" (but not only).
> Quality implies standards and practices; quality can be measured (more
> or less). From my understanding.
> Instead of 'quality', I propose 'value' which is more subjective.

I agree that “value” sounds more appropriate here.  Fixed!

>> +However, note that the project is working towards a more automated patch
>> +review and merging system, which, as a consequence, may lead us to have
>> +fewer people with commit access to the main repository.  Stay tuned!
>> +@end quotation
> I find inappropriate the "Stay tuned!" in the manual.

Because it’s too informal, or because it’s confusing?  (The former is
fine with me.)


reply via email to

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