From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553791381F3 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 00:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 02E18E0A04; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 00:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FCB1E09A4 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 00:06:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from grubbs.orbis-terrarum.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408D533E3A9 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 00:06:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 26222 invoked by uid 10000); 22 Jun 2013 00:06:31 -0000 Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 00:06:31 +0000 From: "Robin H. Johnson" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Soliciting input for a non-maintainer update (NMU) GLEP Message-ID: References: <201306211940.03851.vapier@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201306211940.03851.vapier@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 20dc380f-f989-42e8-83f7-1bbaa55dfa43 X-Archives-Hash: da6f3850e50c2641d83d4597e86e99cf On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 07:40:03PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 21 June 2013 14:50:54 Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > From what I've read on the list recently, there's a lot of demand for > > non-maintainer updates to ebuilds. Esp. with the upcoming Git migration, > > I predict there will be a much larger influx of changes from users. > seems like we're somewhat approaching it the wrong way around. [Snip giant suggestions re gerrit/review-systems] I'm not going into review systems here at all, I'm simply trying to have a policy of what changes are welcomed/blocked WITHOUT interaction from the listed maintainer(s) of a given package/herd. If they have to ask me to review a trivial patch, I've already failed them. I don't want ANY gatekeeping, I want them to go and commit it already. Then extending THAT to Gerrit, who is responsible/allowed to hit that web interface submit button? I don't want it to have to be me either for most of my packages. If some developer reviews a trivial change (either by another dev or a user) and thinks it's ok, then it should probably go in the tree. Why does it need to involve me at all, other than I'm the listed maintainer for the package. If it's some major patch or a big feature addition, then it probably needs more serious eyeballs (eg complex patches to qmail [very fragile], unix socket patch to openssh [rejected upstream]). I think both NMU & Gerrit need to happen (as well as 'git pull' of changes from users). -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85