Jan 30, 2023, 20:03 by d...@lynne.ee: > Jan 30, 2023, 17:49 by mich...@niedermayer.cc: > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: >> >>> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see >>> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I >>> definitely haven't! >>> We may complete the list at a later date. >>> >>> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >>> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >>> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >>> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what >>> everyone expects. >>> >>> Patch attached. >>> >>> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >>> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 >>> 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch >>> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Lynne <d...@lynne.ee> >>> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 >>> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access >>> >>> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember >>> while looking at the recent git log. >>> We may complete the list at a later date. >>> >>> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >>> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >>> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >>> before it was changed at the start of this year. >>> >> >> I dont object to you adding a list of people with commit acccess though i >> dont think its needed or that useful. >> But adding a list that is incomplete, sorted in a odd way and doing so in a >> commit that states a past rule which i dont think was true, seems not >> ideal >> >> ATM there are I think 117 keys that have write access (some may belong to >> the same developers) and also over 100 maintainers in that MAINTAINERs file >> I think. I didnt try to count them too precisely. But the numbers are not >> that disimilar. The added list is quite abit more different >> > > My intention was to make this complete after it's accepted (or not, if > someone doesn't want to be known for having push access). > > >> Also iam not sure this commit will change that much. People who do not want >> write access neither before nor afterwards will not send a ssh key so wont >> get >> write access. And people who want write access will push for it and >> probably noone will object. Theres the between people who dont push for >> it and noone else would push either they might no longer receive write >> access. Iam not sure if that is better. >> >> It makes things more involved but whats really bad is that this extra >> step is mainly in your mind, its not docuemnted. >> Do i add someone to that new list when i give him write access or do >> i give someone write access when a patch adding her is approved. Or do >> i just ignore that list because its incomplete anyway ? >> >> I assume the intend is the 2nd one but How would a contributor know >> to add herself to that list and what about people who are quite humble >> and who would not push for it yet at the same time would benefit from >> write access ? >> > > How would anyone know to maintain something they should add themselves > to the list of maintainers? > A second list of those with push access doesn't add more roadblocks, it's > just a separate list, that's all. You wouldn't have to add yourself to > maintainers > to get push access if you don't want to. > As for those humble, I do see your point, but it's a one-line diff change, > and it can be done in the same commit adding yourself to maintainers, > it's not a 2-page personal statement about values. > > >> ATM every maintainer automatically receives the right for write access >> After this patch its made more difficult, i cant just post a patch adding >> random people either Someone would have to convince them first that they >> should post a patch to add themselfs. >> >> So what i really dislike on this change is the potential stumbling blocks >> it throws before new developers. >> >> Its important that one has write access to the repository one works in >> In FFmpeg that work happens on git master so write access to that is >> important for anyone actively working on it. >> In other places work and review might happen in developers own repositories >> and they get merged regularly. In that case write access to master is not >> needed >>
At the FOSDEM meeting yesterday, everyone there agreed that while it's not perfect, it's a step in the right direction, and we should merge this. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
