From: Dave Chapman <dave_at_dchapman.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:22:54 +0100

Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> I have a few problems with this idea.
> First, what is the bar to decide if we actually need to vote before a
> commit? everything? everything not trivial?

If we're talking new features, then it could simply be anything that
changes behaviour of Rockbox for users - i.e. anything that requires a
change in the manual.

But this shouldn't need to be a burden on committers - approval could
simply be achieved by asking on IRC and if the commit is
non-controversial, I'm sure there will be enough devs around at the time
ot say "go ahead".

What I think Bagder is proposing (and what I'm fully in favour of) is to
formalise this process a little - most people already discuss commits in
IRC before committing, so this is just saying how many people need to
agree with it before it can be committed, and what happens if there are
objections.

> Secondly, ignoring opposition like "This could be coded better" why
> should one person have veto power? Especially when quite a few times
> the only opposition comes from people who don't see the value of an
> addition (and so wouldn't affect them anyway)?

That's my main argument - if no other people see the value in an
addition, then it doesn't belong.

Dave.
Received on 2010-10-10