* On Friday 2005-06-24 at 11:49:16 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Tony Abou-Assaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > What's the purpose of having more committers if we have active ones? > > I'm a bit of a special case,
I had a bit of a chuckle when I saw Tony's question, given your obvious "senatorial" status here and in the GNU project in general. :-) I just waited and didn't reply immediately myself... > Obviously I'd want to work within any existing review process. What > is the process? Is it written down anywhere? I grepped for "review" > in the grep source and didn't find anything. There appears to be one in place that predates my recent involvement. It's probably all in the mailing list archives (bug-grep and bug-gnu-utils). I may have somewhat breached it recently, but that's because I have some reservation about it which basically amount to... > Part of the motivation here, to be honest, is to improve the activity > rate of 'grep'. 'grep' was way too stagnant for quite some time. > It's gotten better, but it's still too slow. ... just that. A balance needs to be struck, and as you pointed out in another email, we can always back out of CVS because it keeps everything. While no review at all before committing to CVS is bad, once everybody has been invited to weigh in, there's always that "if no one objects" approach (i.e., progress instead of deadlock by default) that can help keep things going.
