On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:06:36AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > And I hope we can agree that I'm able to review myself when it comes to > the PTS and to Alioth.
That's not really a "review" then, is it? I don't think it's my place to agree or disagree with that statement, anyway; the question we've been asked to rule on is who should be the maintainer for the developer's reference. I hope that low-level questions like this can be sorted out between the two of you without needing to involve the TC; if they can't, I guess we need to take that into account, but that would be unfortunate. > > IMHO this is not an unreasonable rule; in many cases where > > review/consensus is given high importance, but the time developers have > > available to them for doing such reviews is limited, this is an effective > > mechanism indeed. > I don't follow your reasoning, in what way the fact to not commit helps > for the review? Requiring review before commit ensures that the rate of commits does not exceed the rate at which changes can be reviewed. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
