On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < phcoder@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23.03.2014 19:24, ron minnich wrote:
So I believe the problem is not the idea of gatekeepers, but the manner in which they are proposed to work. Can you tell me what about this upsets you? I want to understand.
The problem is that the proposal is that all commits go through gatekeepers. It's bottleneck. It makes much more sense to have per-path maintainers and tiered code. E.g. we could keep all boards rather than shooting them and the ones that are considered to be too old can have less stringent requirements on commits. This will free the qualified people time to concentrate on boards where it's most important. Also it will benefit "unimportant" boards as well as they'll be easier to keep. Then per-path maintainer and gatekeeper are contradictory concepts. How one can be maintainer if he can't commit to his maintained code. I feel, for example, that nehalem code and resulting boards are my responsibility and I should be able to commit there easily. Getekeeprs will make this impossible as I'm more or less the only one who knows nehalem code *and* cares about it. I feel like the top-level maintainers would be only about overall structure, not about details in Board:foo/bar they've never even seen and solving disputes. Making everything go through 6 people is unfeasible as 6 people can't represent broad range of interests and some parts of code will get neglected more that they have to be of simple scarceness of resources.
Without speaking for anyone or about anything else, can Stefan comment on this proposal by Vladimir? It seems relatively cool and reasonable.
I publicly, sincerely apologize for my part in heating this thread up.
David