Hi again Everyone,
Thanks for the insight.
And while no one has suggested it was the case, let me re-itterate
That I wasn't trying to obtain commit access to the SVN repository by
some stealth manner.
It purely "stemmed" from am "I" as PM and are "we" as a project dong
all that can for patch submissions.
it would seem that we are and it would also seem that just about
everyone thought the same way too.
In that case, perhaps some appropriate update to HACKING is in order?
I could add it to the PM description - in the sense of;
This is what the role does with your submissions
If the patch is not committed at the time it is proposed, then he
Does this seem worthwhile? and if so - I'll scribe up a patch to
On 16/07/2009, at 7:01 AM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 03:21:27AM +1000, Gavin Baumanis wrote:
>>> I ping the list asking for review etc.
>>> But it still doesn't get any interest from a full committer.
>>> Normally I would send it to the issue tracker.
>>> At this point - and not before, do I propose that the PM could
>>> instead, commit the change.
>> I think the patch should be filed into the issue tracker with
>> a milestone of either the next .0 release or the next patch release.
>> If the patch does not address a serious bug in a released version,
>> then it should be scheduled for the next .0 release.
>> If the patch does address a bug which exists in a released version
>> of Subversion, then the issue should be scheduled for the next
>> patch release.
> This is exactly what should happen. The role of the patch manager
> is to ensure that no patch is left behind. Either a committer
> commits the patch, it gets sent back for further review, or a
> reviewed patch is left to languish. In the last case, I issue of
> type PATCH should be opened, and periodically, committers troll
> through the issue tracker reviewing or committing such patches.
Received on 2009-07-18 04:17:08 CEST