From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14860 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2008 21:10:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 14850 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jul 2008 21:10:42 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,KAM_MX,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:10:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6NLA8WD031408 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:08 -0400 Received: from file.rdu.redhat.com (file.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.147]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6NLA7M1005262; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn-4-121.str.redhat.com [10.32.4.121]) by file.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6NLA6VY016232; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:06 -0400 Message-ID: <48879E2E.5040200@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:10:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Frysk List Subject: Re: meeting References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on 172.16.52.254 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q3/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 > * Where to host? Lots of hosting choices out there, but sourceware > seems like the default. We all have accounts, we have access, etc. > I'd like to get things set up ASAP, say today. > > As neutral a place as possible, without any distro or company related connotations if possible . We have folks that can admin sourceware.org and it has proven highly successful as a place to host, develop and promote open source software. That is my vote. > - All patches must be reviewed by someone other than the author. > - I forgot to mention this, but Apache-like, a strong objection > should stall a patch until a rough consensus is reached. > Is the +1, -1 or (abstain) system? > - Proposed patch review guidelines: > * Does it have internal documentation (comments)? > * Does it follow upstream coding style? > * Does it have external documentation, if needed? > * Does it have a test case, if needed? > * Is it clear/complete/etc? > > Does it cause regressions to the existing test suite? Though this should be formed as a promise from the user that testing has occurred, re meeting. Regards Phil