-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Wednesday, April 09, 2008 18:33:30 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
>> Greg Smith wrote:
>> > Making sure nothing falls through the cracks is exactly the point
>> > of an enforced workflow. It might be a manual operation, it might
>> > be some piece of software, but ultimately you need a well-defined
>> > process where things move around but don't get dropped. Exactly
>> > how said enforcement happens is certainly open to discussion though.
>>
>> As a volunteer organization we don't have much enforcement control.
>
> We don't? It's like this :)
>
> "You want to submit a patch, this is how it's done."
> "Oh... You don't want to do it that way?"
> "Tough"
>
> Why is it that because we are a volunteer organization we can't have
> enforcement? You document the procedure, and every single time the
> issue arises you paste a link with that procedure :)
Damn, this is starting to get to be a trend ... but, I can't but agree 100%
with this ... we *can* enforce, and I doubt it will have much (if any) affect
on the # of patches that come in, since ppl want to see their work committed,
and will follow any *reaonable* procedure we have for them to do so ...
Do other large projects accept patches 'ad hoc' like we do? FreeBSD? Linux?
KDE?
- --
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkf9dI8ACgkQ4QvfyHIvDvOFgQCfZ74Yefkh3TGxlmoxf6ujI4La
VxIAn3dJRWm4pLUn9Qr7Y2zobyCpXHeG
=pazk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----