On Friday, January 25, 2013 11:33:28 AM Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:24:16PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On quinta-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2013 12.17.20, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > > Parts of the packaging process is in gerrit (namely qtsdk/qtsdk.git), > > > > > > > > so he should be really be able to stage things > > > > > > uh, wtf?! nothing against iikka specifically (couldn't judge it), but > > > this is so totally not a reason to make someone an approver. in areas > > > > Even taking in consideration what the other replies have said, I still > > disagree with Ossi's original comment. > > > > Take again my replies to Uli Schlachter's approver proposal: we have to > > make an exception when a specific skill is required in the project. > > Iikka's bringing a specific skill that we need, in addition to his > > current contributions. > > > > This of course requires that the newly-minted approver stays on, helping > > us > > with that particular skill. > > this makes no sense at all. > of course we need people with specific skills - therefore we allow > anyone to contribute. > but that does not imply that everyone who fills a specific niche needs > to be an approver. approver is a specific, purpose-bound designation, > not a generic "valued contributor" label.
Ossi, does it make more sense if the skill we are talking about here is the ability to tell whether a change in their area of expertise is correct or not, with a probability of correctness high enough to bring the project forward? Isn't that the skill that an approver has over a regular contributor? Simon _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
