From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47419) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1imz4B-0001bq-Se for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 06:55:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imz49-0004aL-Tk for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 06:55:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60598) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imz49-0004Z4-NI for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 06:55:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1imz49-0000YT-ND for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 06:55:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#38846] [PATCH 4/4] DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit access. Resent-Message-ID: From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20200101163446.5132-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20200101163446.5132-4-ludo@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:53:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: (zimoun's message of "Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:51:50 +0100") Message-ID: <87y2uqul9n.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: zimoun Cc: 38846@debbugs.gnu.org Hello! zimoun skribis: > On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 17:36, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > >> +Committers are expected to have had some interactions with you as a >> +contributor and to be able to judge whether you are sufficiently >> +familiar with the project's practices. It is @emph{not} a judgment on >> +the quality of your work, so a refusal should rather be interpreted as >> +``let's try again later''. > > Cutting the hairs: on one hand "be able to judge" on practices and on > the other hand "not a judgment on the quality". > Even if I understand the idea behind (I guess), I do not find it well > worded, if I might. > I mean, I bet that "the quality of work" is a strong part when > motivating the acceptance or the refusal, so yes it is "a judgment on > the quality of your work" (but not only). > Quality implies standards and practices; quality can be measured (more > or less). From my understanding. > > Instead of 'quality', I propose 'value' which is more subjective. I agree that =E2=80=9Cvalue=E2=80=9D sounds more appropriate here. Fixed! >> +However, note that the project is working towards a more automated patch >> +review and merging system, which, as a consequence, may lead us to have >> +fewer people with commit access to the main repository. Stay tuned! >> +@end quotation > > I find inappropriate the "Stay tuned!" in the manual. Because it=E2=80=99s too informal, or because it=E2=80=99s confusing? (The= former is fine with me.) Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.