Do we also plan to publish similar guidelines for deciding on Project
maintainer?
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Michael Scherer
wrote:
> Le samedi 18 mars 2017 à 16:47 +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri a écrit :
> > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Amar Tumballi
> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't want
Le samedi 18 mars 2017 à 16:47 +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Amar Tumballi wrote:
>
> > I don't want to take the discussions in another direction, but want
> > clarity on few things:
> >
> > 1. Does maintainers means they are only reviewing/ merging p
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 01:20:31AM +0530, Amar Tumballi wrote:
> I don't want to take the discussions in another direction, but want clarity
> on few things:
>
> 1. Does maintainers means they are only reviewing/ merging patches?
> 2. Should maintainers be responsible for answering ML / IRC questi
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Amar Tumballi
> wrote:
>
>> I don't want to take the discussions in another direction, but want
>> clarity on few things:
>>
>> 1. Does maintainers means they are only rev
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Amar Tumballi wrote:
> I don't want to take the discussions in another direction, but want
> clarity on few things:
>
> 1. Does maintainers means they are only reviewing/ merging patches?
> 2. Should maintainers be responsible for answering ML / IRC questions
> (w
I don't want to take the discussions in another direction, but want clarity
on few things:
1. Does maintainers means they are only reviewing/ merging patches?
2. Should maintainers be responsible for answering ML / IRC questions
(well, they should focus more on documentation IMO).
3. Who's respons
Posting in line, but it may be pretty hard to follow.
Apologies if I miss something.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:12:18PM -0400, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We have been working on a proposal [1] to make the lifecycle management
>
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 07:06:53PM +0100, Niels de Vos wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:12:18PM -0400, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We have been working on a proposal [1] to make the lifecycle management of
> > Gluster maintainers more structured. We intend to make the proposal
> > e
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:12:18PM -0400, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We have been working on a proposal [1] to make the lifecycle management of
> Gluster maintainers more structured. We intend to make the proposal
> effective around 3.11 (May 2016).
>
> Please review the proposal and let u
Hi all,
In the interest of keeping this moving, we'll be taking feedback on this
thread until April 15th.
Anything come to mind that you want to say on this?
I'll be at Vault next week if you'd like to have a conversation about this
in person before putting your feedback on the mailing list, but d
Hi All,
We have been working on a proposal [1] to make the lifecycle management
of Gluster maintainers more structured. We intend to make the proposal
effective around 3.11 (May 2016).
Please review the proposal and let us know your feedback. If you need
clarity on any existing aspect or fee
11 matches
Mail list logo
