Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:10:47 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Cc: DougB@FreeBSD.org, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Idea: New file called CONTRIB Message-ID: <3D0BBB67.FAF083B6@mindspring.com> References: <3D0B96CD.CA45F33F@FreeBSD.org> <20020615.142321.38689858.imp@village.org> <3D0BA570.D7F58CAD@mindspring.com> <20020615.152046.76963466.imp@village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"M. Warner Losh" wrote:
> Do you have something useful to contribute, or just carping? The
> reason for it is to make sure that we properly document what is
> grandfathered so people know.
To me, it looks like an attempt at a "back door", just like Doug
Barton said in his posting.
I don't see a reason for "CONTRIB". Either it's in /contrib, or
it's not. If it's not, then adding a "CONTRIB" file is nothing
more than an editorial comment. Under what circumstances would it
be useful, when MAINTAINERS would not?
Either it's a comment on the validity of "MAINTAINERS" ("we need
CONTRIB because people ignore MAINTAINERS") or it's a opinion on
people not letting code be moved over to /contrib ("this code
should be in /contrib, but it's not because it's politically
impossible for me to move it over there").
You said in response to Doug:
| This is different than a Maintainer. This is a bigger sign that says
| "well, in an ideal world, this would be in contrib, but for whatever
| reason it isn't. Treat it like contrib however. Thanks."
You don't explain why a bigger sign is necessary. If it's not movable,
then "whatever reason" could be "because it's not contributed code".
If it's just that the code should be moved, then it should be discussed,
and either moved (a "CONTRIB" file is not necessary), or it should be
decided that it *will not* be moved (a "CONTRIB" file is not necessary).
The only thing I get out of "treat it like contrib" is that someone
wants to assert strong ownership over the code. The strong ownership
over /contrib code is an artifact of the synchronization issue. If
there isn't a synchronization issue, then you're just asserting
ownership; if there is an issue, then the code should be moved; lots
of code has been moved in the past.
It seems to me that what you *really* want is an "OWNER" file, from
the semantics you are implying with your argument.
If you are asking for a mechanism to assert ownership over code, then
by all means, be up front: ask for that.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D0BBB67.FAF083B6>