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 1921B45436 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2023 23:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2732268BD50; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 01:15:05 +0200 (EET) Received: from w4.tutanota.de (w4.tutanota.de [81.3.6.165]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3749668A2BD for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 01:14:59 +0200 (EET) Received: from tutadb.w10.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.10]) by w4.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04CA10602E9 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2023 23:14:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1675034098; s=s1; d=lynne.ee; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender; bh=alw17+26mC/RfZxRkY4hwYjzYxfVPYsSvh/rOZG9pXU=; b=EcameUoiNE7FBcUzNR11iOQw/uP7SV9NIZ87kDjRUe060j9BbGqfqjDrvXcjiqDq ssVTRcZBhP5wsUOMG8UwkCASECsjL8Fo3vjT5BNDL7HAqe0FWsu3nIhOw26KNnJdoOM UtpbVCcFyjEuOCpsCxRzijVnT/No5VFr5kCKqd5sTqaCmXz0cmVQxCnECY/HdEcVMzT Viwdj8lOd8QHBs1RnvTF1aXx9jKKt+uSethn+Zn5KIZ0G3Ue+AuItm6eY6LYjxzbMsh /IM84jjcSrkR0t6Rk1YEcSb6GEiKVymlIKFEB1PFZ8EQs25lSsoOsZYEwYrZ9S9cz8K j/GNAuPn2w== Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 00:14:58 +0100 (CET) From: Lynne To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20221215193447.GR3806951@pb2> <20221216220503.GW3806951@pb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Dec 18, 2022, 07:31 by dev@lynne.ee: > Dec 16, 2022, 23:05 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:26:58AM +0100, Lynne wrote: >> >>> Dec 15, 2022, 20:34 by michael@niedermayer.cc: >>> >>> > 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 you, 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-separate-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 pushing in >>> > their own repository and sending pull requests similar to the kernel. But 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 exception >>> > >>> >>> This is exactly what changed. Before, maintainers who didn't get push >>> access was the norm, not the standard. >>> >>> Regardless, if you agree with the patch, I see no reason to continue discussing this. >>> >> >> I see the need to reach some approximate consensus on the past because making >> 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 treated like >> any other developer and have equal access. >> >> I use this as an example because several of these students came and left after >> their project and still got write access. >> >> Maybe all our memories are not 100% exact after so many years but I think you 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 >> > > I don't object to students having push access and being treated like developers, > I think that's beneficial. I don't mind them leaving and still having write access either. > My concern are the drive-by developers who drop a patchset and want to get > added to MAINTAINERS to voice their opinions on future patches for their code. > Most of them do not want push access, they just want to be consulted if their code > has any changes outstanding. > > Regardless of what you think the policy has been or is, most developers I've spoken > to about this see the MAINTAINERS list as an informative list, not as a write > access request, and I think so as well. This patch just makes it explicit whether > someone wants write access or just maintainership. > Pushing this in 3 days unless anyone objects. _______________________________________________ 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".