Re: Fix CG description of module system

[David Kastrup]

Mark Polesky <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> I really don't think a turnaround time of weeks for things
>> like that, taking an order of magnitude more of time,
>> effort, and spirit than actually writing the improvement,
>> contributes much to development.
>
> Hmm.  Me neither.  Is there something that would make it
> easier for future people in your situation?

Commit access.  Fighting for trivialities is just a waste of everybody's
time: the people who need to track mails with patches, the people who
need to apply them or keep track of them in the hope that somebody else
will apply them.  Not least of all those who provide them.

I've been told that it takes lots of sizeable contributions before one
can hope to get considered for commit access.

So it's likely that I'll be having (and spreading) bad mood for a while
to come.

> I sympathize with your frustration; I have similar feelings.  But the
> best thing we can do is improve the docs to prevent these problems for
> future contributors---currently I'm trying to restructure the CG for
> very similar reasons.  If you want to write some text to clarify any
> obstacles you hit recently, that might help out.

The obstacles are clear.  Better explaining them is not needed as far as
I am concerned and would be a waste of time.  Better spent the time on
vetoing/registering/creating patches as far I am concerned.

-- 
David Kastrup