> Some people from gamerlay have made clear that they are not really > interested in reviews, yet you want me to waste time on that?
I bet, you misunderstand that position. It is a big difference between «users is not interested in review» and «users is not interested to follow the way like «some gentoo developers» maintain their projects. Actually, I told many times already: let's discuss the suggestions to change the policy to work on gamerlay. Make suggestions. Make discussions. I personally too very like github-like model. I personally very like an idea to review idea to review commits. But let's don't forget, that we're community. Let's use Do-cracy. But on the other hand I don't even have time to finish ebuild quiz, no mention to change gamerlay behaviour in single person right now. Also, back to that conversation: Despite I like an idea of reviewing commits to gamerlay, I disagree with that you proposition that "all stuff should go to the sunrise". And also, as I already mentioned, I keep all the staff (including games) that I don't want to be reviewed in my own overlay (btw, despite of that, sometimes I find my ebuilds commited to the tree with little changes). And I even position it (my overlay) like the sandbox, not the workplace. And I also suggested to make gamerlay to be a community-sandbox for games, where developers can get game ebuilds to commit them to the tree (maybe, after some refinement). And that way worked some time. But then I noticed that you have become negative about gamerlay as the essence. So, once again: sugesst! discuss! let's do! P.S. Also, actually, that conversation (which, I guess, makes you talking about refusing reviews by gamerlay people) was under the impression of maintenance of some other (non-game-related) part, so, may be you took on your accoun some arguments not directed to you, but for some unnamed "somebody".
