On 3 December 2012 03:30, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Dec 2, 2012 6:09 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and
fix
stuff.
From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we thought 2-4 weeks depending on the
severity of the bug is fine. Ofc this should exclude major changes or
delicate packages from base-system/core/toolchain.
Seems reasonable - I'd say 2 weeks is plenty. Of course, if the
maintainer explicitly rejects the change in a posting on the bug, then
it is hands off without some kind of escalation. Non-maintainers who
are concerned about a package can always step up to maintain, as long
as it involves real commitment.
Oh, and on a side note Markos raises a valid point on the bug about
whether the devmanual is a good place for policy. The problem is that
I'm not sure we really have a good place, especially with the ebuild
docs gone in favor of the devmanual now.
Rich
Maybe adding some bits here[1] is preferred instead of the devmanual.
Unless we agree to make devmanual a technical and non-technical document,
which I personally don't like because it will end up being huge without
some sort of indexing/search textbox for quick queries.
[1]
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=2
In my opinion we should limit the amount of places where we document
policies and best practices. I suggest we keep only devmanual and PMS as
authoritative documents.
In that case we should go forward and add these kind of policies to the
devmanual.
--
Cheers,
Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
