Julian Foad wrote on Fri, 30 Aug 2019 06:54 +00:00: > Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > I think that section as it stands (before your change) is pretty hard to > > follow: it jumps back and forth between different topics. I might take > > a shot at clarifying it (without semantic changes), if that won't > > conflict with patches you have in flight. > > Yes please! > > I strongly urge that we simplify any and all of our documentation at any > opportunity. Nearly all of it is much too long. It would be much better > to state the facts in a few bullet points, and move the discussion of > rationale and history to a dedicated subsection so readers just wanting > the facts can easily skip that part.
I've had a go, see staging/. Feel free to take it from here. > > What do you propose to do about the rule that changes to tools/ or > > bindings/ require 1×+1 and 1×+0? It would be odd if changes to tools/ > > required more votes than changes to core. > > Good catch. Should require just one +1 vote (removing the additional +0 > vote). While editing on staging/ I noticed there was an explicit bit of rationale there about getting two pairs of eyes on every change. I guess you should change that part too (make it applicable to LTS lines only)? Or alternatively, require at least a +1 and a +0 on core changes to non-LTS lines. Cheers, Daniel
