On 10/11/2012 01:45:02 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Scott,
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:13:33 -0500, Scott Wood
<scottw...@freescale.com> wrote:
> FWIW I think putting policy documents in a wiki, without any
> guidance on who's supposed to edit it or how changes get approved,
is a
> bad idea. Why not put policy documents in the git-managed source
> tree? And changes would be
> proposed, discussed, and accepted/rejected like any other change.
Plus
> there'd be at least a chance of a commit message showing rationale.
While I can see the benefits you find in this, is it not based on
the unspoken axiom that the project's policies should necessarily be
subject to a democratic process?
Process is othogonal to revision control. We could vote on whether a
policy patch gets applied, though I do not think U-Boot is currently
democraticly run, except to the extent that Wolfgang sometimes changes
his mind if enough people complain. I do not know of any existing
democratic process for approving a wiki update, and would hesitate to
just go make a change.
As for the merits of the policy itself, I find maintainer signoffs to
be useful, for example to distinguish a patch that I've applied locally
versus one that I've fetched from upstream.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
