Hi Scott,
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:59:31 -0500, Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com wrote:
On 10/11/2012 01:45:02 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Scott,
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:13:33 -0500, Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com wrote:
FWIW I think putting policy documents in a wiki, without any guidance on who's supposed to edit it or how changes get approved,
is a
bad idea. Why not put policy documents in the git-managed source tree? And changes would be proposed, discussed, and accepted/rejected like any other change.
Plus
there'd be at least a chance of a commit message showing rationale.
While I can see the benefits you find in this, is it not based on the unspoken axiom that the project's policies should necessarily be subject to a democratic process?
Process is othogonal to revision control. We could vote on whether a policy patch gets applied, though I do not think U-Boot is currently democraticly run, except to the extent that Wolfgang sometimes changes his mind if enough people complain. I do not know of any existing democratic process for approving a wiki update, and would hesitate to just go make a change.
My remark was that Stephen took the democracy for granted in the process, not that there was a relationship to be drawn between process and revision control.
As for the merits of the policy itself, I find maintainer signoffs to be useful, for example to distinguish a patch that I've applied locally versus one that I've fetched from upstream.
This you can see by looking at the upstream branch tip, the patch's committer identity or by doing a git branch -r --contains <commit-id>.
-Scott
Amicalement,