s/do want/do NOT want
On Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:21 PM, Philip Kovacs <pkdevel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am opposed to allowing PP unfettered access to projects in which the maintainer(s)
are responsive. It's common for developers to have artistic (volatile) temperaments ,
like a painter who paints on canvas owned by someone else. Does the owner have
the right to change the color jars? Perhaps. Does the owner have the right to look
at the painting and say "I don't like the way you painted that tree. I'm going to change it."
Absolutely not.
Perhaps add a project setting that allows package maintainers to configure how PP
changes can be made, by direct commit, by pull request, etc. That would allow maintainers
who are more "involved" with their packages to have more control. It's a common
management problem. People who have taken on responsibility must also have control
to the extent to which system allows. You certainly do want to drive good people away..
On Saturday, December 9, 2017 5:06 AM, Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 08:30:20PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> Now this has gone back and forth. The system worked more or less ok.
> Maybe it is more about the changes (and communication) of a
> specific provenpackager?
After sleeping a night over this, I should have put it in different
words:
My questionis are here:
- do we have an issue at all?
- do we have an issue with a single provenpacker
- do we have an issue of attitude or with a group of people?
The consensus of this long thread was: no, the system works mostly ok.
That makes me believe, we don't have a generic issue.
It's not my intention to blame anyone here, I'm still assuming best
intentions.
Nevertheless, since people are different, and not everybody can be
friends with each other, maybe it's a good idea to make communication
mandatory, in cases where proven packagers touch others packages? For
mass changes, there is/should always be an announcement to the
devel mailing list.
Matthias
--
Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Now this has gone back and forth. The system worked more or less ok.
> Maybe it is more about the changes (and communication) of a
> specific provenpackager?
After sleeping a night over this, I should have put it in different
words:
My questionis are here:
- do we have an issue at all?
- do we have an issue with a single provenpacker
- do we have an issue of attitude or with a group of people?
The consensus of this long thread was: no, the system works mostly ok.
That makes me believe, we don't have a generic issue.
It's not my intention to blame anyone here, I'm still assuming best
intentions.
Nevertheless, since people are different, and not everybody can be
friends with each other, maybe it's a good idea to make communication
mandatory, in cases where proven packagers touch others packages? For
mass changes, there is/should always be an announcement to the
devel mailing list.
Matthias
--
Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
