On 7/30/07 7:57 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Since I have not heard any strong opposition to changing the category
> name to 'Reviewers', I will go ahead with this patch later this week.
Committed.
2007-07-31 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* MAINTAINERS (Reviewers): Rename from Non-Autopoies
On 7/30/07 12:08 PM, Seongbae Park (¹Ú¼º¹è, ÚÓà÷ÛÆ) wrote:
> While reviewers can approve the changes in the parts of the compiler
> they maintain,
> they still need approval of their own patches from other maintainers
> or reviewers.
Sounds good to me. Thanks.
On 7/30/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/27/07 9:58 AM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >> I liked the idea of 'Reviewers' more than any of the other options.
> >> I would like to go with this patch, unless we find a much better
> >> option?
> >
> > to cancel this category
On 7/27/07 9:58 AM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> I liked the idea of 'Reviewers' more than any of the other options.
>> I would like to go with this patch, unless we find a much better
>> option?
>
> to cancel this category of maintainers completely?
An interesting idea, but let's discuss
On Jul 27, 2007, at 07:54, Diego Novillo wrote:
+Note that individuals who maintain parts of the compiler as reviewers
+need approval changes outside of the parts of the compiler they
+maintain and also need approval for their own patches.
s/approval changes/approval for changes/ ?
Hello,
> I liked the idea of 'Reviewers' more than any of the other options.
> I would like to go with this patch, unless we find a much better
> option?
to cancel this category of maintainers completely? I guess it was
probably discussed before (I am too lazy to check), but the existence
of non
I liked the idea of 'Reviewers' more than any of the other options.
I would like to go with this patch, unless we find a much better
option?
Thanks.
Index: MAINTAINERS
===
--- MAINTAINERS (revision 126951)
+++ MAINTAINERS (workin
> Since the whole file is about MAINTAINERS, I would suggest changing the
> categories to:
>
> - Committers (i.e. committing maintainers)
> - Reviewers (i.e. reviewing maintainers)
> - Non-algorithmic committers
I like the idea of "reviewers", but think "committers" is confusing. Perhaps
"full"
I really do not like the current name either, but i do not have a better
one.
Since the whole file is about MAINTAINERS, I would suggest changing the
categories to:
- Committers (i.e. committing maintainers)
- Reviewers (i.e. reviewing maintainers)
- Non-algorithmic committers
Paolo
Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> diego's suggestion is ok. i guess it at least satisfies the criteria of
> being a well known word.
I like "non-self-approving". I needed a dictionary to figure out what
"autopoiesis" meant.
David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Diego Novillo writes:
>>
>
> Diego> I've always found the term Non-Autopoiesis too pretentious and
> Diego> unnecessarily complex. In a recent thread, Tobias Schluter proposed
> Diego> Non-autonomous, which is at least more readily understandable.
>
>
> Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> I've always found the term Non-Autopoiesis too pretentious and
Diego> unnecessarily complex. In a recent thread, Tobias Schluter proposed
Diego> Non-autonomous, which is at least more readily understandable.
Diego> Would this patch be OK? Any other suggestions
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I've always found the term Non-Autopoiesis too pretentious and
> unnecessarily complex. In a recent thread, Tobias Schluter proposed
> Non-autonomous, which is at least more readily understandable.
Disclaimer: I am writing this in my capacity as non-nat
I've always found the term Non-Autopoiesis too pretentious and
unnecessarily complex. In a recent thread, Tobias Schluter proposed
Non-autonomous, which is at least more readily understandable.
Would this patch be OK? Any other suggestions for a better category
name? Is anyone violently oppose
14 matches
Mail list logo
