From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19566 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 13:40:35 -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 19559 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 13:40:35 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 13:40:00 -0000 From: Andrew Lunn To: Gary Thomas Cc: eCos Maintainers Subject: Re: Patch policy Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1052228094.30126.4510.camel@hermes> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Filter-Version: 1.6 (ascomax) X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 > 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. Andrew