* Betr.: " Re: [tryton] Voting proposal" (Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:01:31 +0200):

Hi Bertrand,

> Le Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:22:52 +0200,
> Mathias Behrle <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 
> > * Betr.: " Re: [tryton] Voting proposal" (Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:04:18
> > +0200):
> > 
> > > Le Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:18:51 +0200,
> > > Cédric Krier <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > 
> > > > Here is the proposal for vote on improving contribution
> > > > requirements that will take place from 27-06-2010 to 03-07-2010.
> > > > [...]
> > > 
> > > Some precision on how I see stuffs : Those 'must' rules are enforced
> > > for each changeset of the repositories, so they can be expressed as
> > > 'should' rules for patch submissions.
> > > [...]
> > I don't understand this paragraph. 'Should' rules change to 'Must'
> > rules on commit time? Then they are indeed 'Must' rules...
> 
> Let me re-phrase my proposition:
> 
> 1) To be applied on a repository, a changeset MUST contains the name
> of a real person and a valid and unique email address.
> 
> 2) Hence a submission of changeset on the bugtracker SHOULD  contains
> the name of a real person and a valid and unique email address. If the
> submission doesn't observe this constraint, and in order to ensure
> point 1), it MAY happen one of the following: The patch is simply
> ignored or the patch is rewritten from scratch or he contributor name
> is replaced and the patch is applied.

- You are separating stuff for different media of the project, which changes
  (extends) the definition (Originally: - contribution: any code or xml data
  submit for commit into a repository of Tryton.)
- Question 1 is just a summary of questions already exposed in the very first
  proposal. There is nothing new in it.
- Do you want this proposal be handled in the final vote as one question (2
  depends from 1)? 

And to throw in my 2¢:
- I will not vote for a requirement, that I cannot enforce. Email unique (btw.
  the definition of this term is lacking, I suppose it to be: unique user of an
  email address) can not be controlled in any way. No need to enforce it.
- "...or the contributor name is replaced and the patch is applied."
  Replaced with what? An ununique email address like [email protected]? ;)
  Strictly no for hijacking of patches with a maintainer address from me.
  
> > > Which means that the rules are enforced for each patch that reach
> > > the repositories.
> > 
> > Is this a proposal to discuss or is it a definition, while you are
> > speaking here in your functionality as maintainer?
> > 
> 
> This is a proposal, with more details on what happens if a submission on
> the bugtracker is invalid, more precise and IMO better than the
> previous one. As such everybody is welcome to vote for it or against it
> once the voting window opens.

Since it changes the definition, it is another vote: the vote about the
definition.

Mathias

-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    MBSolutions
    Gilgenmatten 10 A
    D-79114 Freiburg

    Tel: +49(761)471023
    Fax: +49(761)4770816
    http://mbsolutions.selfip.biz
    UStIdNr: DE 142009020
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to