Hi,
After all these discussions, I think the review model as I proposed it
puts commonly agreed development processes in black & white, which
should help the project (while not hindering development in any way).
To address some points:
- It will do nothing to resolve ongoing conflicts, obviously, but in my
mind it provides a strict mechanism to force discussions for possibly
problematic changes (the root cause of the current issue is that the
situation was left to rot for a few months, because the CTR process is a
bit easy to abuse)
- The rules that are set are indeed common sense: it should have worked
that way before (core changes should be discussed beforehand, and
possibly risky ones should too); that's what I've been stating all along
- I don't understand where the idea of contesting vetoes as a first
reflex came from, given the amount of patches that are veoted or
disagreed with (much less than 1%; surely at least this amount of
patches are so-so at best ...)
- I am a bit lost about where the thread went yesterday since I took a
sday off, and I can't extract concrete stuff out of it (please try to
post a bit less ;) )
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
