Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> writes:
> So would r8270 be already approved under this system as both clako and
> myself have +1'ed it? I think you're saying it would be. I'm just a
> bit unclear on how you're defining "any other committer." Do you mean:
> any other full committer or partial committer in that area? Or do you
> mean just flat out any other committer full or partial? I guess in
> either of those scenarios r8270 would be already approved. Either one
> works for me.
I meant any other committer -- partial or full.
At a certain point, we have to trust people to use their judgement and
not +1 or +0 things they're not competent to review. :-) If someone
has partial commit access only for, say, documentation, and has no
coding experience, then they'll know not to start +1'ing bindings
patches. (I'll mention this in the writeup, of course.) It would be
burdensome to have a formal distinction between different kinds of
partial committers.
> > If people prefer, we can apply this system to just the javahl bindings
> > for now, but I think it would be more comprehensible if applied to all
> > the bindings. And after all, nothing is stopping someone from
> > reviewing a change if they want to, no matter how many votes it
> > already has.
>
> I think it's better to have a consistent approval system for all the
> bindings. There are times when all of the competent people aren't going
> to have time to review things. Right now at least with the perl
> bindings it takes the vast majority of those that are competent to
> review them for anything to happen.
>
> So +1 on doing this for all the bindings.
Cool.
I'll wait another day or so for others to see this thread, before
making the change official by committing it to STATUS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 13 21:20:57 2004