From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21730 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 13:44:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21723 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 13:44:10 -0000 Subject: Re: Patch policy From: Gary Thomas To: Andrew Lunn Cc: eCos Maintainers In-Reply-To: <20030506134022.GM24032@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> References: <1052225944.30126.4370.camel@hermes> <20030506132550.GK24032@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> <1052228094.30126.4510.camel@hermes> <20030506134022.GM24032@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: MLB Associates Message-Id: <1052228649.30126.4543.camel@hermes> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 13:44:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 07:40, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > This is policy that we would have to develop (decide on). > > One way would be to only accept patches via BugZilla. Then the > > onus would be on the submitter. To make this policy work, maybe > > we'd want to have the default owner of the "bug" be the patches > > list, or at least send a copy there. > > I think part of the problem is that there is no clear owner of a > patch. So i would not set the default owner to "bug", but rather the > owner of the component, so we have a real name we can point a finger > at. The assignment can be changed manually if its not appropriate. > This sound reasonable. -- Gary Thomas MLB Associates