Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whoa!
I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I
committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC
member
looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes.
Imagine
how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to
clear
this up ASAP!
It's been cleared up for some time, imho. We can do two things to work
it out in a gentle manner:
I disagree that it has been cleared up for some time. The fact that
only PMC members votes count is certainly new news to me. I've already
committed one back of changes improperly, based on receiving 4 +1 votes
that apparantly don't count. I've got 2 more [RTC] reviews pending
where 2 people have taken the time to test and vote on my patches, only
to now discover that their votes don't count, so they were essentially
wasting their time. These patches have been sitting in [RTC] for 10
days now, I've only seen activity from 1 PMC member so far at looking at
these.
1/ Be more active and describe the change so that not only are
developers encouraged to test it out or even PMCers. Why is it that
only committers and PMCers vote? Is the description of the change not
easy to understand enough? I wonder what makes them unattractive for
lurkers?
2/ Be more active and gain a PMC nomination so the number of PMCers
increases.
And that sounds like a path to do nothing but spending your time testing
and voting on others patches, and not getting to spend any time working
on stuff that interests you.
They seem to be obvious things, but in RTC mode we operate nothing's
as obvious as it was. We all learn RTC and with no other projects
operating in RTC we're pioneers. With a limited bandwidth I've got I'm
quite certain I'll work on patches that are easy to grasp and have
extensive documentation behind them. Of course, the more talk about it
in the dev mailing list the better as it will spur my interest in
testing.
Jacek
