OK, so here's an update On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:32:30 +0100, Eric Kow wrote: > Florent and Reinier, as active reviewers, do you have opinions to > contribute about doing something like this in principle? How about > Jason as a sort of reviewer emeritus (good ol' Day Job)?
Among the active reviewers: - Ganesh proposed submitted in the first place - Petr seems willing to try it out - Eric is up for an experiment - Florent is willing to bubble up an "in" matcher to his darcs list - Reinier has Process Skeptic reservations (fear of introducing an inefficiency), but is willing to try it out Also: Jason has said he's filtering darcs mail (as information overload coping, I think) and not to expect a reply in general. So while he did raise objections to the whole adventure idea, [a] these are mostly based on the Q2:(when is it safe to merge) and on Q1:review logistics, and [b] well, he's not really active as a reviewer, so outreach+consultation only go so far. http://irclog.perlgeek.de/darcs/2010-09-14#i_2824955 So! I'm going to create that branch tomorrow unless I hear objections. Note that this doesn't necessarily rule out the adventure approach to working, but it could be something to try out first and see how it goes. Eric PS: The whole consensus thing here isn't so much about everybody agrees, but that folks broadly agree, and those that don't, can at least accept the justification as being valid, and live with the disagreement. In case of consensus-building breaking down, we reach for voting as a last resort. Here, we didn't seem to need to. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> For a faster response, try +44 (0)1273 64 2905 or xmpp:ko...@jabber.fr (Jabber or Google Talk only)
pgpcQ9qNaWUdn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
