I won't object to this, but would consider
it an exception that should not be considered a precedent.
I mean ... not one patch attached to
any bug? Not one bug reported anywhere? Not one wiki page? How about a
document of what the plan to convert/move/migrate/maintain is? Seems like
there could/should be some easy concrete contribution to point to, it is
not that hard.
Again, I won't object, but I don't know
where the line is. Such as, what if Jose ... just hypothetically
... were to change jobs. Would he stay on as a committer and do the work?
Or is it his "position" that leads to this and if someone else
took his position at IBM would they then be expected to be "voted
in" without any public record?
Again, I won't object ... but ... wanted
to emphasize that "contributions" don't have to be huge or complex
... and would hate to see this become the norm.
Thanks for asking.
Martin Oberhuber <martin.oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
10/04/2012 02:11 AM
Adding a committer for releng tasks ?
Greetings Tools PMC,
In the TM project, we're thinking about
adding a person (Jose Manuel Garcia Maciel of IBM) for release engineering
tasks, particularly migrating / maintaining legacy builds of old streams
after our upcoming git migration.
In order to make sure that his tasks work smoothy without unnecessary blockers,
we'd propose making him a committer.
Jose has no public track record of any contributions so far, but we discussed
the situation with the current active committers today and would be OK
with him becoming committer. His rights would be restricted to releng by
I know that there have been precedent cases like this with other projects,
and think that this should work if the project is OK (via normal committer
vote). Just wanted to check back with you whether you see any roadblocks
from the Foundation / Dev Process point of view.
Wayne was OK with this but suggested I also ping the Tools PMC.