On 2014-09-12 16:52, compn wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:42:01 +0200 > Stefano Sabatini <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On date Friday 2014-09-12 03:12:06 +0200, Michael Niedermayer encoded: >>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:31:29AM +0200, James Darnley wrote: >> [...] >>>> +@item >>>> +Don't expect to be given write access straight away. If you show >>>> yourself to be +a regular and reliable contributor or if you wish >>>> to be a maintainer you will be +offered write access. >>>> @end enumerate >> [...] >>> this sounds a bit like "talking down to someone from above", also i >>> dont think we should just copy all stuff that was in some text that >>> we had a link to on our webpage, into our development policy. >>> >>> We should change the policy if we see the need to change it / if we >>> want to change it ... >> >> +1 > > i think the current unwritten policy rule is 'everyone gets write access > as long as they can follow rules'. > > ffmpeg's policy is different than mplayer's policy.
So, shall I drop this patch then? Should I just drop the first sentence and just say that regular reliable people might be get the offer? I did think it a little strange to try to spell out when one might be offered access. Instead, should I try to expand a section somewhere to state that others will apply/push submitted patches that pass review? (If the docs don't already say so) > thanks for porting the other rules over. :) > and putting up with all of our nits and comments No problem. Posting patches get people to consider policy, and the docs (which I think sometimes get a little ignored).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
