Hi,
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 at 21:33, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It may help to shed a bit of light on the original reason I think this
> change came into existence, and in the interest of transparency and
> hopefully improving or finding alternatives to the proposed change, I
> consent to Ludovic openly discussing it, even if it involves a healthy
> dose of critique and looking inward.
There is no one original reason but several diffuse situations. Well, I
have tried to provide the context and the intent behind the patch in
this message here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-03/msg00121.html
Although I agree that the wording of the initial Ludo’s proposal is not
the one I would like, it does not appear to me so crazy to ask another
LGTM for some part of the code.
Double-check leaf Python package is not worth and it adds a lot of
unnecessary burden. We all agree here, I guess.
Double-check core packages or Guile build-side code sounds to me totally
reasonable.
The initial wording of the proposal,
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
+When your patch falls under the area of expertise of a team
+(@pxref{Teams}), you need the explicit approval of at least one team
+member before committing (another team member if you are on the team).
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
cannot apply for all the teams. Again, we all agree I guess.
However, this proposal appears to me totally sane for what is under the
scope of the team named ’core’ for instance.
Instead of a strong opposition, the patch needs an update.
Cheers,
simon
