On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:37, Johan Rydberg wrote: > In other projects that I've worked on, we've used a system where the > core developers can either give a +1 or a -1 on a contributed patch. > If a patch receives two +1's or more, it is accepted (if there are no > -1's) and committed by one of the developers.
You can vote for a patch, but I'm not planning to apply "majority rule" to GRUB. As you can see in various countries, majority-based decisions do not always work very well. I rather believe in aristocracy in software development. Our rules are: - When you are a committer and a patch is trivial enough, you can (and should) check in the patch by yourself. - If not, you should ask others in grub-devel. - I retain final words as the designer of GRUB 2. For some certain parts, I completely rely on other developers. For instance, Hollis would even precede me in PowerPC-specific changes. - If a change is involved with political issues, official maintainers must approve or disapprove. This is required for the GNU Project. Our way is mostly trust-based, and authority-based for important decisions. I do not think this way is working badly. Okuji _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
