[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index


From: Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org>
Date: 2004-07-19 19:09:04 CEST

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:20:55AM -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> writes:
> > Hmmm. Well I wasn't sure. Patch submission seems to be documented in this
> > way so it seems consistent. But realistically its your call. Most
> > proposals are going to come from the committer community anyhow. So
> > perhaps not.
> Oh, actually we get a lot of proposals from non-developers (which is
> great). I guess it's hard to know about the proposals that never get
> sent :-), but my instinct is that the people who would be in doubt as
> to how to send in a proposal aren't reading HACKING anyway.

I agree with Karl here. I think trying to document a proposal for
backport procedure is unnecessary. Many non-committers have made such
proposals. Ultimately, to get something backported you have to convince
a committer to nominate and vote for it. I don't think it really
matters how they do it.

Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 19 23:19:02 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.