On 3 December 2012 03:30, Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 2012 6:09 PM, "Rich Freeman" <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and > fix > > > stuff. > > > From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we thought 2-4 weeks depending on the > > > severity of the bug is fine. Ofc this should exclude major changes or > > > delicate packages from base-system/core/toolchain. > > > > Seems reasonable - I'd say 2 weeks is plenty. Of course, if the > > maintainer explicitly rejects the change in a posting on the bug, then > > it is hands off without some kind of escalation. Non-maintainers who > > are concerned about a package can always step up to maintain, as long > > as it involves real commitment. > > > > Oh, and on a side note Markos raises a valid point on the bug about > > whether the devmanual is a good place for policy. The problem is that > > I'm not sure we really have a good place, especially with the ebuild > > docs gone in favor of the devmanual now. > > > > Rich > > > > Maybe adding some bits here[1] is preferred instead of the devmanual. > Unless we agree to make devmanual a technical and non-technical document, > which I personally don't like because it will end up being huge without > some sort of indexing/search textbox for quick queries. > > [1] > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=2 > In my opinion we should limit the amount of places where we document policies and best practices. I suggest we keep only devmanual and PMS as authoritative documents. In that case we should go forward and add these kind of policies to the devmanual. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
