On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Derrick Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OpenAFS has started down a path to formally organizing. One piece of > the plan involves formalizing roles, and so provided here is a draft > plan for the role of the gatekeepers as well as expectations of > contributors in their interactions. Comments welcome, either privately > or ideally to [email protected] . > > http://www.openafs.org/foundation/gatekeepers.html >
BTW, since you posted to openafs-announce, I'm responding here. If this should go elsewhere, let me know. Under the contributors section: 4. should provide a unit test for any contribution.(*) I suggest that there are problem some things that the developers could agree as 'Must's and not just 'Should's. For example, Must provide Qt-style comments for all new or modified functions, macros, and non-local variables. If that simply finds its way into the details for item 6: must provide documentation for submissions which add commands or functionality or change user-visible behavior, meeting current documentation standards.(*) (i.e., the 'current documentation standards') I'd be happy with that as well. And I'd encourage others to think about what would make sense from a development standpoint and make other suggestions as well. -- Steven Jenkins End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
