Am 23.03.2010 23:01, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
Martin v. Löwis <martin <at> v.loewis.de> writes:
Procedurally, I wonder where people got the notion from that you can or need to apply for commit access. IIUC, it used to be the case that you would be recommended for commit access, by some (more or less senior) fellow committer. That person then would work on actually getting commit access to the new committer - perhaps by first asking other people in private, to avoid any public embarrassment if access is ultimately denied. IMO, that committer should then also mentor the new guy, both by helping out in difficult cases, and by closely following commits to see whether (possibly unstated) conventions are being followed.
I'm not really picking on Brian here specifically, I just want to point out that I dislike this (apparent) change in process, primarily because of the risk of embarrassment.
For the record, I'm not opposing any point you are making, but all this is not clearly written out, and I think that's why people (including me) lately have been thinking that the candidate for commit rights had to declare himself on this mailing-list.
I don't think it is "wrong" to do it this way -- but of course the hopeful new committer needs to be prepared for a "no". I still would like every new committer to have a "mentor" from the pool of more experienced committers; however for people who are very active on IRC like Brian, there's usually one of the around to review a patch before it is committed. Georg