On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 23:09:14 -0700, Nick Steeves wrote:
Hi,
Recently I've had quite a time trying to figure out how a CLC member should submit fixes to another maintainer. Documentation on CLC's CVS conduct is conspicuously missing. We should write, or reference a document of procedural guidelines. I would appreciate if everyone would comment on Ticket #38. I guess we might require some guidelines like this if we decide to allow many more maintainers. I'm a bit surprised that we need them already now, since it would only define how two persons talk together, which doesn't need a big protocol IMHO. Given that we try to recruit "team players" according to the maintainer guidelines, I don't think it's too much asked if we require new maintainers to be able to communicate, especially given that "communicate" is another requirement on the list (maintainer guidelines).
What might be of use are rules which are centered around ports, not people, like: - if a download is broken (as in fam), commit and tag REASON: there's no point in keeping a broken port ACTION: notify the original poster NOTE: have a look at the port; if you're not confident that it works the same as before, try to get the original patch and add it to the CVS itself - if it's a security or otherwise critical fix, send a patch to the maintainer with an URL to the report. If the maintainer doesn't respond in 2 days, commit and tag ACTION: notify the original poster NOTE: if you're uncertain about the fix, contact clc-devel first - if you have change suggestions, contact the maintainer with a description of your changes. If he doesn't respond, resend to clc-devel to discuss it there and apply if it seems to make sense. Would this be enough for now? Kind regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net