RE: PATCH keyword, again

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

Jeff wrote:
> <quote who="Murray Cumming Comneon com">
> 
> > In summary, I believe that the neglected-patches problem is a major 
> > obstacle to contributing to GNOME. I believe that 
> co-maintainers are 
> > the answer, and I think that we (the community/foundation board) 
> > should maybe declare that all modules should have >1 maintainer. 
> > Single points of failure are bad.
> 
> We, particularly the Foundation Board (who have *nothing* to 
> do with this at all), can not impose this kind of arbitrary 
> decision on maintainers.
> We can encourage it, we can say that 
> it's a good idea, etc., etc., but we can't enforce or impose it.

Yes. I suggest that we recommend co-maintainership (or "maintainership
mentoring") in a how-to-be-a-maintainer guide that thomasvs
( http://www.advogato.org/person/thomasvs/diary.html?start=128 )
is working on at the moment. I'd like that guide to explain the importance
of reviewing patches quickly. Thomas, I guess you know about this already?:
http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/for_maintainers.html
 
> (Personally, I don't even think it makes sense for every 
> module.

Do you have examples of any modules for which it would not make sense?

> It's a nice idea, but we should deal with problems as 
> they arise, and maintainers should be the people making the 
> decisions about how to maintain their modules.)

Of course, but within acceptable limits, I think.

Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
murrayc usa net