On Jan 27, 2012, at 11:59 PM, john skaller wrote: > > On 28/01/2012, at 1:45 PM, Martin Lucina wrote: > >> [email protected] said: >>> What specific suggestions do you have for improving the process? >>> (Demanding that all patches be rigorously inspected and tested by the >>> maintainers is not a reasonable, though specific, suggestion.) >> >> Code review is in fact specifically what I am asking for. Every major FOSS >> project has a code review policy: > > > On Felix project everyone who shows some capability and interest > gets to write to the master repo. I don't want to mess around doing > pull requests .. an even more extreme policy. This way if there's > a bug or whatever I can just fix it. Not suggesting that here, > but the point is probably the same: work on the basis of > trust and minimal authoritarian management of contributions.
I am part of several projects that have a very similar policy. If you produce *one* patch that is accepted by the community, you get a commit bit on the main repository. It can be taken away if you prove yourself to be foolish with changes, but it mostly fosters a very open community and allows for very rapid evolution. Maybe we'll move to that model over time. We'll see. cr _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
