Julian Foad wrote on Fri, 30 Aug 2019 06:54 +00:00:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > I think that section as it stands (before your change) is pretty hard to
> > follow: it jumps back and forth between different topics. I might take
> > a shot at clarifying it (without semantic changes), if that won't
> > conflict with patches you have in flight.
> Yes please!
> I strongly urge that we simplify any and all of our documentation at any
> opportunity. Nearly all of it is much too long. It would be much better
> to state the facts in a few bullet points, and move the discussion of
> rationale and history to a dedicated subsection so readers just wanting
> the facts can easily skip that part.
I've had a go, see staging/. Feel free to take it from here.
> > What do you propose to do about the rule that changes to tools/ or
> > bindings/ require 1×+1 and 1×+0? It would be odd if changes to tools/
> > required more votes than changes to core.
> Good catch. Should require just one +1 vote (removing the additional +0
While editing on staging/ I noticed there was an explicit bit of
rationale there about getting two pairs of eyes on every change.
I guess you should change that part too (make it applicable to LTS
lines only)? Or alternatively, require at least a +1 and a +0 on
core changes to non-LTS lines.
Received on 2019-08-30 20:57:55 CEST