[PATCH wayland 0/2] Document review and commit access requirements

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:53:12 -0500
Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2018-06-18 08:42 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > From: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.co.uk>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > for years we have relied on unwritten traditions on how to review
> > patches. Gaining commit access has been a secret rite no-one really knew
> > what was required for to ask or grant it. I would dare claim that this
> > has been partially the reason for why there are so few people who
> > routinely review and land patches. At least I hope so, because
> > "unwritten" is something we can fix.
> > 
> > Let's try to write down the existing conventions and criteria we use to
> > review patches. These will not be rules to be followed to the letter but
> > to the spirit.
> > 
> > Once we have documented guidelines for quality assurance on patch
> > review, we can set up rules for granting commit rights. The movement to
> > document commit rights requirements started in the kernel DRM commmunity
> > as a tool to give out commits rights to more people and get more people
> > involved and reviewing patches. I believe we would certainly want more
> > people involved with Wayland and Weston, but it won't work if we don't
> > also get more reviewers and committers.
> > 
> > So here goes. Documenting what is expected from reviewers and commmit
> > rights holders should make everyone's lives easier. These patches are my
> > first take on it, and build on others' as referenced. I want to ensure
> > that I am replaceable. That everyone is.
> > 
> > The guidelines will not be perfect from the start. They should we honed
> > over time.
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > pq
> > 
> > 
> > Pekka Paalanen (2):
> >   contributing: add review guidelines
> >   contributing: commit rights  
> 
> Really like these, and both are:
> Reviewed-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung at gmail.com>
> 
> I like Daniel's suggestions too, but am fine with those being follow up
> work.

Both pushed as is:
   35d0425..bb1a8ca  master -> master

I will prepare follow-up for the raised thoughts and some more.


Thanks,
pq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20180627/8f2460c3/attachment.sig>