[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: please stop this
From: |
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko |
Subject: |
Re: please stop this |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:10:48 +0200 |
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert Millan<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:17:39AM +0800, Bean wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Pavel Roskin<address@hidden> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 19:57 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> >
>> >> I agree that we have a problem due to lack of leadership, but this is not
>> >> acceptable. Marco is busy right now (traveling), so please put this on
>> >> hold
>> >> untill he's back, then we can discuss it.
>> >
>> > I agree that we should not rush with such changes. However, publishing
>> > patches for discussion and testing is a good thing and should not be
>> > discouraged.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yeah, I don't mean to push it. In fact, I've created a git repository
>> for my temporary work
>>
>> http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/bean.git
>
> Hi,
>
> Usually, I only go through the trouble of implementing things when it's
> clear they will be merged in some form. But I understand it's not
> the same for everyone. So if I missunderstood, please accept my apology.
In some cases actually implementing something is needed to know
whether it will give an advantage
>
> In any case, this kind of changes need wider consensus, and including the
> maintainers in it.
The problem is that most comments are in the form "maybe I agree maybe
I don't". Such kind of discussions may never result in consensus.
Useful patches lying in bitrot somewhere on the list is unfortunately
something common. We need a better organisation and more dynamism if
we want project to advance. New maintainer can make these changes
happen. And generally I tend to accept a rule "absent person is wrong
and agrees". Not because I don't respect other people but just because
I don't see why project would eternally wait for someone to come by. I
think that main rules are Sane-o-cracy and Do-o-cracy: As long as
choice is sane and expandable doer decides
> And in general, I think we should hold off from big
> restructuring at this time. Using branches is a good idea IMHO (be it
> "someone's branch" or "pupa2" or whatever).
Having too many branches per developer may prevent GRUB from being
GRand and Unified.
>
> --
> Robert Millan
>
> The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
> how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
> still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>
--
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git
Re: [PATCH] New object format, Bean, 2009/07/14
Re: [PATCH] New object format, Isaac Dupree, 2009/07/18
- Re: [PATCH] New object format, Bean, 2009/07/19
- Re: [PATCH] New object format, Bean, 2009/07/21
- Re: [PATCH] New object format, Bean, 2009/07/22
- Re: [PATCH] New object format, Javier Martín, 2009/07/22
- Re: [PATCH] New object format, Bean, 2009/07/22
- Re: [PATCH] New object format, Javier Martín, 2009/07/22