[gentoo-dev] kernels, etc.

[gentoo-dev] kernels, etc.

[Brian Jackson]

Okay, until I can think of a better way to handle the kernel stuff, I'm just 
going to have klieber remove the restriction under one condition... nobody 
commits to sys-kernel without talking to me first unless you have been 
maintaining something. This will have to suffice until I can figure out a 
permanent solution.

--iggy

-- 
Home -- http://www.brianandsara.net
Gentoo -- http://gentoo.brianandsara.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernels, etc.

[Brian Jackson]

On Friday 03 October 2003 05:46 pm, Tim Yamin wrote:
> Brian Jackson wrote:
> > Okay, until I can think of a better way to handle the kernel stuff, I'm 
just 
> > going to have klieber remove the restriction under one condition... nobody 
> > commits to sys-kernel without talking to me first unless you have been 
> > maintaining something. This will have to suffice until I can figure out a 
> > permanent solution.
> > 
> > --iggy
> > 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> This is in no way a flame or anything, but it seems that people are not 
> too happy with our new management systems. I don't see a problem with 
> the system, I see a flaw in the design: with only authorized devs on the 
> CVS, we can't have much kernel development. With devs having to ask you 
> before commiting, we also can't have much development because of time 
> loss.  I think it would be much easier for devs to ask x86-kernel where 
> either you, me, or Jay can reply and thus speed up fixing times. [ Or 
> even scrap the asking alltogether, but it looks like you aren't too keen 
> on that... ]

Well, I don't want to know every time somebody commits something, I basically 
just want to know who is working on what.

> 
> Finally, I think that people will continue to flame with these rather 
> restrictive policies. Because I'm a kernel dev and do pretty much most 
> of the commits et al. I don't really have any problems with the policy 
> as it doesn't [yet] restrict me, but I think that people may slowly 
> begin to get a grunge against you, the kernel team, and possibly even 
> Gentoo policy? This is only an opinion of what I think other people 
> think. Currently I'm fine with what's going on, but personally, I would 
> scrap it and reorganize slightly differently:-

Actually, if anything, I think there will be a small group of people that have 
already made up their minds about me. That's fine, I don't seek universal 
popularity. The changes I made were, in restrospect, a bit hasty, and they 
have since been undone. I'll take the lessons I learned from all this, and 
try not to repeat my mistakes again. This is going to be a huge learning 
experience for me, and I intend to make the most of it. 

> 
> *- Generalized / Architecture kernels can be commited to anybody
> *- So can gentoo-sources/xfs/blar blar blar
> *- However, if the fixes are not approved and/or not emergency,
>     x86-kernel has the right to retract changes
> 
> Remember that we need to *let people commit and help* not lock people 
> out. It only hinders progress... And progress is what you seem to want, yes?

Yes we want people to help and contribute, but we don't want somebody who 
isn't skilled enough to do things that could harm a large user base. Remember 
the kernel is the foundation of the system, and we don't want somebody to get 
burnt because we have irresponsible devs.

--iggy

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tim Yamin [plasmaroo] :: Gentoo X86 Kernel Development
> plasmaroo@gentoo.org
> 

-- 
Home -- http://www.brianandsara.net
Gentoo -- http://gentoo.brianandsara.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list