+1 - thanks for taking this on Ben!
On 14 May 2015 at 18:12, Adam Bordelon a...@mesosphere.io wrote:
SGTM. +1 on no special privileges for maintainers, trusting our committers,
and associating maintainers with (JIRA) components
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Vinod Kone vinodk...@apache.org
+1
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Benjamin Mahler benjamin.mah...@gmail.com
wrote:
After stepping back and giving time for everyone to mull it over, and
having discussed it further with many of you, I wanted to bring the
discussion back to the list. The motivation remains the same, but I
SGTM. +1 on no special privileges for maintainers, trusting our committers,
and associating maintainers with (JIRA) components
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Vinod Kone vinodk...@apache.org wrote:
+1
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Benjamin Mahler
benjamin.mah...@gmail.com
wrote:
After stepping back and giving time for everyone to mull it over, and
having discussed it further with many of you, I wanted to bring the
discussion back to the list. The motivation remains the same, but I propose
two changes to the approach:
(1) We use maintainers without any process
+1 for the proposal and for {master|slave}.cpp break up.
Will there be any dependency between a maintainer and a committer?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Cody Maloney c...@mesosphere.io wrote:
+1
It would be nice if there was way to specify things like build system
changes which are
+1
Thanks for the write up Ben!
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015, Dominic Hamon dha...@twitter.com.invalid
wrote:
Well, we should probably do that anyway :)
On Feb 10, 2015 2:25 AM, Adam Bordelon a...@mesosphere.io
javascript:; wrote:
+1 on MAINTAINERS over OWNERS, and the rest of the
Well, we should probably do that anyway :)
On Feb 10, 2015 2:25 AM, Adam Bordelon a...@mesosphere.io wrote:
+1 on MAINTAINERS over OWNERS, and the rest of the proposal thus far.
Also +1 on Merit is not about quantity of work, it means doing things the
community values in a way that the
+1 Tom/Adam
--sent from my phone
On Feb 10, 2015 10:52 AM, Niklas Nielsen nik...@mesosphere.io wrote:
+1
Thanks for the write up Ben!
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015, Dominic Hamon dha...@twitter.com.invalid
wrote:
Well, we should probably do that anyway :)
On Feb 10, 2015 2:25 AM, Adam
+1
It would be nice if there was way to specify things like build system
changes which are different than just adding/removing a single file. But
probably that level of enforcement isn't worth the effort it would take to
add.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:56 AM, James DeFelice
This sounds really interesting Ben - I'm definitely +1 to the idea.
The only question that comes up in my mind is, are files/areas of the code base
segmented enough at the moment for this to be useful?
--
Tom Arnfeld
Developer // DueDil
(+44) 7525940046
25 Christopher Street,
Hi all,
I have been chatting with a few committers and we'd like to consider adding
the concept of MAINTAINERS files to coincide with our shepherds concept,
introduced here:
+1
@vinodkone
On Feb 8, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Tom Arnfeld t...@duedil.com wrote:
This sounds really interesting Ben - I'm definitely +1 to the idea.
The only question that comes up in my mind is, are files/areas of the code
base segmented enough at the moment for this to be useful?
Yes, great.
Why not use OWNERS as it is already in use internally at Twitter, at
Google, in Chromium, and tooling already supports that as an implicit
standard?
On Feb 8, 2015 2:52 AM, Benjamin Mahler benjamin.mah...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have been chatting with a few committers and we'd
13 matches
Mail list logo
