On Friday 08 May 2009, Rick Altherr wrote: > On May 8, 2009, at 10:06 AM, David Brownell wrote: > > > Might it also be appropriate to point out that some > > patches get directly applied to SVN, without any > > opportunity for mailing list discussion or review? > > > > I'd rather we stop that from happening.
As I was subtly hinting. ;) > It sidesteps the community > review process, introduces more risk to trunk, and means we get long, > heated arguments about the changes rather the discussion. The list > should be a clearinghouse. Absolutely. > A lack of comment shouldn't imply consent. Sometimes "lack of comment" will need to imply that though; maintainers can't rely *that* much on other people. The role of a maintainer specifically implies enough authority to do things like that, at least for non-major change. > > Or would that belong in a separate "process" document? > > It's not appropriate for the PATCHES file per se, but we should > formalize the process for _after_ a patch has been sent to the list. > That is mainly for maintainers to reference and for submitters to > understand what is happening. I agree those policies need to be clarified. There's another thread on that topic. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
