Hello Martin, On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:09:43PM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
It is my impression that all people who want CVS write access already have it (with Gustavo perhaps being one of a few exceptions).
If I may step in here -- let describe my own position, as I feel it might be shared by a number of bystanders. I have submitted a couple of bugs and patches, and am getting some sense of what is expected. I often run into pending patches and bugs that I'd like to help review, some that I even feel I could accept or reject (according to your guidelines), but I'm not sure I should be trusted CVS access right now. What about adding an SF outcome/resolution status ("reviewed" or "proposedly closed" or even "low-hanging fruit" :-) meaning that the issue has been reviewed and discussed, according to the guidelines, and that the reviewer thinks the item should now be closed (commited or rejected) ? I feel it is a better solution than just assigning the item to an arbitrary core developer. This lets anyone step in as a reviewer, which is a status that should be clearly documented: review other people's work and not your own, of course, and closely follow the guidelines. (SF might get in the way if it disallows third-parties to change an issue's outcome or resolution status; reviewers could instead use an inline keyword or ask the author to change the status.) Armin