From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBCD44FDF for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:05:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DC868B840; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 00:05:12 +0200 (EET) Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net (relay10.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.230]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8773D68B34F for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 00:05:05 +0200 (EET) Received: (Authenticated sender: michael@niedermayer.cc) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41496240009 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:05:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 23:05:03 +0100 From: Michael Niedermayer To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: <20221216220503.GW3806951@pb2> References: <20221215193447.GR3806951@pb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4259036648183786254==" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --===============4259036648183786254== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="D9gQZneUBQfHBTVA" Content-Disposition: inline --D9gQZneUBQfHBTVA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:26:58AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > Dec 15, 2022, 20:34 by michael@niedermayer.cc: >=20 > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > > > >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see > >> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten y= ou, I definitely haven't! > >> We may complete the list at a later date. > >> > >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation > >> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what > >> everyone expects. > >> > >> Patch attached. > >> > >> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > >> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separ= ate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch > >> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: Lynne > >> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 > >> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push = access > >> > >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember > >> while looking at the recent git log. > >> We may complete the list at a later date. > >> > >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > >> explicitly in a different commit. > >> > >> This used to be the situation > >> before it was changed at the start of this year. > >> > > > > I remember no such change. > > What i do remember is really long ago trying to push people toward push= ing in > > their own repository and sending pull requests similar to the kernel. B= ut this > > was not popular so i droped the idea. > > > > Whereever code is maintained teh maintainer should have write access to= that > > place other things become inconvenient quickly. > > > > maintainers who cannot change the code they maintain should stay an exc= eption > > >=20 > This is exactly what changed. Before, maintainers who didn't get push > access was the norm, not the standard. >=20 > Regardless, if you agree with the patch, I see no reason to continue disc= ussing this. I see the need to reach some approximate consensus on the past because maki= ng decissions should not be based on misremembering things. I see that in 2015 the GSOC students who got added to MAINTAINERs also got write access in 2015. and IIRC x264 had a similar policy at the time where students would be trea= ted like any other developer and have equal access. I use this as an example because several of these students came and left af= ter their project and still got write access. Maybe all our memories are not 100% exact after so many years but I think y= ou misremember if you think we had alot of maintainers who did not have the same acccess there where some exceptions but they where few. Also some people like the students in the example above, left they did not = use their write access so maybe people forgot they had write access Thanks [...] --=20 Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -- Voltaire --D9gQZneUBQfHBTVA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABEIAB0WIQSf8hKLFH72cwut8TNhHseHBAsPqwUCY5zrhgAKCRBhHseHBAsP qzDwAJsEMyFxuYptMs8SdUlcMlEC7vT8cACghvYVaxIVBbw64tEXUzZ/IKX1qug= =Moi4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --D9gQZneUBQfHBTVA-- --===============4259036648183786254== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". --===============4259036648183786254==--