On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 02:41 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Sorry, but that's simply false. You _do_ have a choice. You can do
> what we've been doing in the Guix community for years: as a
> committer,
> _you_ can commit the work of non-committers on their behalf. If not
> you, then any of the
Hi,
> The thing is, the work of non-committers *must* be reviewed at some
> point, anyway. Moreover, a committer must take responsibility by
> digitally signing it. To eliminate either of these steps would put us
> at risk.
>
> There's no guarantee that the work of Guix committers will be
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Christopher Baines writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver writes:
>>> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?
>>
>> I wouldn't use quite the same words as Léo, but from my perspective,
>> controlling access to particular branches (master, staging,
>>
Hi Léo,
Léo Le Bouter writes:
> The people that work on it now are Raghav and me, and Raghav does not
> have commit access yet, so that's the only way we can work and
> cooperate now. We don't have a choice.
Sorry, but that's simply false. You _do_ have a choice. You can do
what we've been
Hello!
On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 19:02 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> This sounds theoretical. Concretely, what needs do you have that
> aren't
> being met by Savannah?
Per-branch access control
> I don't understand this. It seems to me the opposite.
>
> If I want to contribute to this external
Christopher Baines writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?
>
> I wouldn't use quite the same words as Léo, but from my perspective,
> controlling access to particular branches (master, staging,
> core-updates, ...) on Savannah is a good
