Dec 18, 2022, 07:31 by d...@lynne.ee: > Dec 16, 2022, 23:05 by mich...@niedermayer.cc: > >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:26:58AM +0100, Lynne wrote: >> >>> Dec 15, 2022, 20:34 by mich...@niedermayer.cc: >>> >>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: >>> > >>> >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see >>> >> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten >>> >> you, I definitely haven't! >>> >> We may complete the list at a later date. >>> >> >>> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >>> >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >>> >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >>> >> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what >>> >> everyone expects. >>> >> >>> >> Patch attached. >>> >> >>> >> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>> >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >>> >> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 >>> >> 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch >>> >> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> >> From: Lynne <d...@lynne.ee> >>> >> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 >>> >> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push >>> >> access >>> >> >>> >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember >>> >> while looking at the recent git log. >>> >> We may complete the list at a later date. >>> >> >>> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >>> >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >>> >> explicitly in a different commit. >>> >> >>> >> This used to be the situation >>> >> before it was changed at the start of this year. >>> >> >>> > >>> > I remember no such change. >>> > What i do remember is really long ago trying to push people toward >>> > pushing in >>> > their own repository and sending pull requests similar to the kernel. But >>> > this >>> > was not popular so i droped the idea. >>> > >>> > Whereever code is maintained teh maintainer should have write access to >>> > that >>> > place other things become inconvenient quickly. >>> > >>> > maintainers who cannot change the code they maintain should stay an >>> > exception >>> > >>> >>> This is exactly what changed. Before, maintainers who didn't get push >>> access was the norm, not the standard. >>> >>> Regardless, if you agree with the patch, I see no reason to continue >>> discussing this. >>> >> >> I see the need to reach some approximate consensus on the past because making >> decissions should not be based on misremembering things. >> >> I see that in 2015 the GSOC students who got added to MAINTAINERs >> also got write access in 2015. >> and IIRC x264 had a similar policy at the time where students would be >> treated like >> any other developer and have equal access. >> >> I use this as an example because several of these students came and left >> after >> their project and still got write access. >> >> Maybe all our memories are not 100% exact after so many years but I think >> you misremember >> if you think we had alot of maintainers who did not have the same acccess >> there where some exceptions but they where few. >> Also some people like the students in the example above, left they did not >> use their write >> access so maybe people forgot they had write access >> > > I don't object to students having push access and being treated like > developers, > I think that's beneficial. I don't mind them leaving and still having write > access either. > My concern are the drive-by developers who drop a patchset and want to get > added to MAINTAINERS to voice their opinions on future patches for their code. > Most of them do not want push access, they just want to be consulted if their > code > has any changes outstanding. > > Regardless of what you think the policy has been or is, most developers I've > spoken > to about this see the MAINTAINERS list as an informative list, not as a write > access request, and I think so as well. This patch just makes it explicit > whether > someone wants write access or just maintainership. >
Pushing this in 3 days unless anyone objects. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
