On Jan 20, 4:15 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi <squee...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I recommend that proposed changes for clojure-contrib be tracked as
> > clojure-contrib issues.
>
> I agree.
>
> > My understanding of the issue policy for Clojure is that Rich would still
> > like to approve them either here or on #clojure (irc) before they're
> > entered. (ref: his recent posting on the topic.) I'm not aware of whether or
> > not he has approved entering issue(s) in this case.
>
> That's a very interesting point. My impression has been that lack of
> objection from him here (or on IRC) is sufficient approval to post
> something on the issues page. If he was completely opposed to these
> proposals, he's had several days to make his opinion known.
>
> Of course that's no guarantee that the issue or any particular patch
> will be approved, but it makes sure that issues and proposed patches
> aren't lost in archives.
>
> Hopefully Rich will clarify his wishes on this.
>
Yes, proposed changes to clojure-contrib should be discussed here
first. If a member of clojure-contrib approves, they should become
clojure-contrib issues, and any related patches attached to such
issues. clojure-contrib members can incorporate (or not!) those
patches (when coming from registered contributors), check them in, and
resolve the issues.
I.e., I am trusting the members of clojure-contrib to be its stewards.
If I think something is off track I'll chime in.
Thanks all for your help and effort!
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
