Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: gnuarch 1.2.1 released! (reannouncement)

[Tom Lord]

    > From: address@hidden (James Blackwell)

    > Grin. I've mentioned it a couple times on list, but after the apparent
    > nobody but jblack tested rc1 problem,  I figured repeating things
    > ad-frigging-infintum would make more sense. :) 

In my experience: yes, lots of gentle repetition is the only way to
spread a meme from arch-central to the larger community.

    >> *ALL* patches should go through BugGoo.  You, jblack, should be
    >> working off of buggoo.

    > I'm not using it directly, though I did hit some of the merge requests
    > for the last cycle.

    > Regarding closing bugs, I'm utterly clueless. ;) 

Ugh.  Please consider working on fixing that, although I guess it's
kind of a race between you fixing your process here and asuffield
finishing automating it.

The goal here should obviously be that you're helping the project
evolve past the need for a Tom-bottleneck, not that you're just taking
over the Tom-bottleneck role.   Every step, therefore, I hope you'll
think in terms of automation and, in that light, using Bug Goo as the
official order-form for your integration labor seems to me to be a big
positive step.

    > > Jblack: I'd be in favor of a PQM-ish policy that *all* changes must
    > > have an associated buggoo issue which includes a merge request for the
    > > changes.   Would you be willing to require that?

    > I figured it would be best to wait for the real PQM to come
    > around; 

Your call.   As GNU maintainer, if asuffield stalls, I should revist
this in less than 6m.

    > in
    > the mean time, I'm more than happy to scrape off the mergelist and
    > respond to friendly emails.

Your call.   I'd be stingier with my attention, if I were you.
Asking for people to go through buggoo is not a big imposition on them
and it will leave you with, if nothing else, an incredible journal of
your integration work.


    > >     > command deltions/archive incompatible changes are in limbo right 
now. If
    > >     > furth comes along "soon", then send those to Tom. If furth takes 
"a long
    > >     > time", then I'll open up a 1.3 development window, and we'll lump 
all of
    > >     > those patches together, and do a 1.3rc1.
    > >
    > > I appreciate your conservatism in such matters.
    > >
    > > The voting system would be a win here.  Really, there should be a list
    > > of "topics" and if a proposed change here overlaps with one of those
    > > topics (e.g., an archive format change) then it should get a "Flag"
    > > vote which blocks it from integration without
    > > more-serious-than-average review.
    > 
    > I'm excited about the voting system. 


Aren't we all.   I wish we could collectively hire asuffield to work
on it full time :-)


-t