Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: > On Oct 27, 2019, at 14:06, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> I have no idea why the problem is only being discussed instead of >>> fixed, but I'll revert > > I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, inaction was mainly due > to expecting affirmation from a more senior contributor.
It's always good to spell out expectations. We might have had too many of those implicit expectations conflict and lead to deadlock. > Even having that, being away from home all weekend would have > prevented me from taking any action. > > I don't refer to the CG as much as I probably should, but having > looked at section 3.4.10 recently, I'll say that if you want people to > take swifter action on their own in cases like this, it might help to > revise this very cautionary language: > >> Please do not try breaking out from it by adding fixes on top of >> staging: in that case the whole sequence will end up in master after >> all, defeating the purpose of the system. The proper fix usually >> involves rewriting the staging branch and is best left to core >> developers after discussion on the developer list. That's for the case of a broken staging not passing the automated test procedures. It does not apply to a broken master. -- David Kastrup
