Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:25:36 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doc-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook Makefilebook.sgml chapters.ent doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls Makefile chapter.sgml Message-ID: <20041206192536.GI513@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20041206191243.GD72462@clan.nothing-going-on.org> References: <200412050014.iB50EMgA007188@repoman.freebsd.org> <41B425FB.5020601@FreeBSD.org> <20041206191243.GD72462@clan.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Hw0FrjWlp+qkNlJP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 07:12:44PM +0000, Nik Clayton wrote: > Remko, >=20 > On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:27:23AM +0100, Remko Lodder wrote: > > I feel a bit passed by by this commit :(. I was preparing a split of the > > chapter as i mentioned on doc@. You even replied to that and still you > > took this out of my hand without asking me or so. > >=20 > > Makes me feel a little sad. > >=20 > > So i would like to hear how we all can arrange that these things will > > not happen again. >=20 > With the best will in the world, I don't think occurences like this are > things we're ever going to completely prevent, nor do I think that it's > necessarily a good idea to. >=20 > First, we're never going to completely prevent it: e-mail's a fallible=20 > communication's medium. All it takes is someone to not see a message=20 > posted, or to delete it (either inadvertently, or with over-active spam= =20 > filters). And people are fallible -- I know I don't always remember the= =20 > ins and outs of which committer's on holiday or unavailable for extended= =20 > periods of time. >=20 > Second, this is a collaborative project. Once there's consensus that > making a particular change is a good idea it doesn't really matter who > makes the change, as long as there's appropriate attribution in commit > messages (which Murray didn't do, I believe, and has offered to > force-commit to note this). >=20 > There have certainly been instances in the past where I've kicked off > the discussion about something, to discover part way through that I've > no longer got the time to do any of the actual work. But a consensus > emerges from the discussion, and whoever has the time (and the > inclination) does the actual changes and commits. >=20 > Sometimes this means that work gets 'trodden on'. If committer A makes > a 'surprise' change that invalidates a bunch of work committer B has > been prepating to commit, it's common courtesy for A to offer to merge > their work with the changes B has prepared. And that's happened in the > past. >=20 > Of course, none of this is set in stone. What do others think? I agree with everything you said. It sucks, but it isn't the end of the world. If it's trodden on work that you had outstanding, then it's nice if committer A offers to help merge the changes. However, I also think that this is the kind of thing that your parents teach you, and we don't need rules for that here. Ceri --=20 Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein (attrib.) --Hw0FrjWlp+qkNlJP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBtLIwocfcwTS3JF8RArIFAJ9Xv0AZ7e9ALoR0PVbItSdycHOCxwCeJZAx vmgo+inWDKYkXi20nexQf5M= =w4UP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Hw0FrjWlp+qkNlJP--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041206192536.GI513>