On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:32:31 AM UTC-5, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2012, Ernie Rael wrote: > > > On 5/15/2012 9:02 AM, Thilo Six wrote: > >> > >> No one is anyone blocking to take care of their peeve pets. > > I'd be hesitant to suggest that people "take care of their pet > > peeves". Yes for real bugs or "infrastructure" features (like spell). > > But since there is hopefully a main guy for each file, shouldn't > > random changes be kept to a minimum? > > I took "pet peeves" to mean minor bugs that are annoying on a daily > basis, not random features. Personally, I think "random" (as in, minor) > changes should be maximized. The more items that go directly from bug > report to fixes in a short amount of time, the more pleasant it is to > use Vim. >
Yes, I think that would be one of the main benefits of the team approach. I think how to handle feature additions/big changes might depend on the "main" maintainer. Some might be OK with "big" changes being made, while others might want to reserve those for themselves. One thing the maintainer might do is be the default reviewer for changes not done by him/herself. But if it hasn't happened in a timely fashion the team can step in. -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
