I can trust someone to follow agreed rules and not to be malicious. That's what it takes for Tier Two. But that's a far cry from trusting them to be technically competent, not make certain kinds of mistakes, and the like.
If a person cannot make a decision, they should ask. That is the only way to learn in my book. If they make a mistake, it is simply to fix it, the whole reason why you have version control systems after all. We make that decision as a group, by consensus, and not by just one person declaring the new way it will be. If the group is silent, then only a single person can declare how something should be done. As was the case for GNU Mach. Marcus wouldn't have said a word if I hadn't poked him on IRC, nor would you. If only one person cares enough, and nobody even cares enough to even say anything, that is the only way to decide something. I don't regret it, and would repeat it anyday of the week, and would expect the same thing on a project where I am the maintainer and am simply to lazy to even answer such a request. > So I'd rather see something like a Tier One and a Half group of > people who can commit stuff, but they should send a message to > bug-hurd with the patch, what it does etc before commiting it > (atleast for gnumach, I don't care much for hurd HEAD since the > creation of ams-branch). This is pointless; anyone who wants can get commit-diffs mailed. It isn't pointless, a commit-diff doesn't contain a description of what the patch fixes. And a commit diff doesn't inline patches, grrr. > By the way, could you/Roland give Thomas Schwinge (savannah user > name tschwinge) commit access? I trust him enough not to fuck > things up, and he has done most of the dirty work when it comes > to patches and would be a immense help for me atleast. I agree. I'll poke at it. Thanks. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
