[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [E-devel] ATTN: Core Developers
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 21:39, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:27:49 +1000 David Seikel <email@example.com> babbled:
> > On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:07:58 -0500 Christopher Michael
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > I'm writting you today under counsel from another core dev who shall
> > > remain nameless for now, concerning the possiblity of granting (irc)
> > > kiwi_ developer access so that he may add his dEvian module, and a
> > > few more up-coming modules, to cvs under e_modules.
I am a little conflicted on this. First, the module/gadget API isn't very
stable yet, and as we've seen, every small API change is followed by the
corresponding change to each of the modules. Gadcon introduces a large API
change, so when that stabilizes, they'll all need a major overhaul.
That said, devilhorns has been pretty consistent at keeping the modules up to
date. (I just think its unfortunate that so many people jumped the gun and
started writing modules using a nowhere-near-stable api). </rant_on_mondules>
As far as granting dev access, I'm all for the more the merrier. But, we used
to have a "send in some (good) patches for a while, and we'll eventually get
sick of committing them and grant you access" policy. So, does "here I wrote
this module" count? Are we going to grant access to EVERY person that writes
a module? Just something to think about.
I hadn't heard of dEvian, and haven't had time to try it out / review any of
the code. So, I abstain from voting (for now).
> core devs are
> 1. current - they actually have been active in cvs etc. recently (if you go
> away for 6 months and come back... you aren't core until u start getting
> back "in the game" - at some fuzzy point afterwards u are back
> 2. you know what u are doing the vast majority of the time. you aren't
> blindly breaking/etc.
> 3. you actually ACCEPT responsibility for your work and when it needs
> fixing - u fix.
> 4. you have a big hand in code development. devs who do packaging i
> wouldn't consider "core" but more "helpers"
> i don't like to make a "them and us" culture though - so i want to keep
> this all fuzzy and nebulous.
I agree. I'm all for a more anarchic system (as in 'no rulers' not 'no
rules'). We just need to maintain some sort of criteria for giving people
access. (And remember that granting someone access is equivalent to vouching
for them and taking responsibility for their actions also).