This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 22:03:48 +0000
- Subject: Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <559606DB dot 6070600 at redhat dot com> <20150703062020 dot GN1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <55968712 dot 2020604 at redhat dot com> <20150703153427 dot GP1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <5596AE46 dot 7030507 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Would it be sufficient to soften the language to say that the machine
> maintainer has blanket commit privileges for their machine, but that they
> remain responsible to the distributions, users, the project as a whole and
> that such blanket commit privileges should be used responsibly?
I think machine maintainers are in exactly the same position as other
subsystem maintainers. That is, they have the discretion to assume
consensus for a change of their own without waiting for other opinions,
but if the discussion shows there is no consensus after all then the
change still needs revising or reverting. (This does not mean that all
objections are relevant for establishing lack of consensus, e.g. if the
reasons given are speculative, based on false analogies to other machines
or a lack of understanding of the change and its context or themselves
ignore other established consensus.)
Joseph S. Myers