On 28/10/16 16:41, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 28/10/16 08:34, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> On 10/27/2016 11:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700 >>> Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling >>>>> it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was >>>>> supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they >>>>> either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just >>>>> never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties. >>>>> >>>>> I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions' >>>>> are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or >>>>> special rules to cover them. >>>>> >>>>> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement >>>>> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a >>>>> straightforward solution to make it global. >>>>> >>>> Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a >>>> regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing >>>> contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow. >>>> >>>> Just a thought. I like where you're going with the idea. >>> Anything put on the git workflow page automatically becomes rejected by >>> most of the developers and users for being a whim of hasufell ;-). >>> >> That seems unproductive. What has been proposed in its stead? >> > I thought monsieurp had written a git flow page for users of the g-p-m > project as they are chief users of this process. Is that only under the > G-P-M wiki page .. might be worth doing some harmonisation there and/or > poking the g-p-m folks? > > MJE > FYI here's the page I was thinking of ... https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_Github
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
