Kent Fredric wrote: >> Comments? >> ~mcummings >> > As a non-dev with not a lot of free time, I applaud this suggestion. > However, my core fear is the potential for it becoming subject to > abuse, and people insisting on repeatedly uploading patches that are > not actually wanted / necessary for the project, despite the package > maintainer saying 'dude , stop' > Well presumably if the maintainer has said it in bugzilla/ whichever tracking mechanism you use, then it's on record. If it's transparent, it's hard for people to argue about it other than on the merits. And users and devs share a common interest in getting the software working optimally.
> Basically, if a non-maintainer wants maintenance rights, how do they > go about attaining them? , an automated service, or some vetting > process? > Dunno what the procedure might end up becoming, but my understanding is commit right to the sunrise overlay, from where a dev has to commit it to the main tree. It seems like a logical extension of sunrise, and i am sure there are stats on who has submitted what to sunrise in the past. So there is a baseline for whom to invite to become <insertNameOfNewPost>s. > How do we go about handling the problem with the predicted increase in > collisions? > I guess it depends on what the predicted increase would be. Maybe one of the infra bods can enlighten us? (I'm guessing you'd take the writes of the users automatically selected and see how many collisions there would have been with the ebuilds they contributed to. A patch that got accepted wouldn't count, of course, if it were possible to track same,) > Is CVS fast enough / flexible enough for such a massive change in users? > > (forgive me if I've made a misunderstanding, but im a SVN man, not a > CVS'er ) > Well aiui CVS is a lot less resource-intensive than SVN and additionally the proposal was to utilise existing infra slightly differently. It doesn't sound like more workload for the servers involved. TBH it sounds more like the kernel model than anything; each individual is responsible for the commits they make with their signature. If they have come from elsewhere is irrelevant (apart from a legal viewpoint.) Code responsibility lies with one, when one presses send. kk or <Enter> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
