corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Kelly <>
Subject Re: Criteria for becoming committer in Corinthia.
Date Sat, 01 Aug 2015 15:26:36 GMT
> On 28 Jul 2015, at 9:24 pm, jan i <> wrote:
> Hi.
> As was obvious from other discussions (in private), we need to agree on
> what are the "rules"
> for being accepted as a committer. It is also obvious that there are room
> for diversity in how
> we apply the rules.
> For me life is very simple, we are a small project, and should use any
> chance to grow. This
> means, I believe we should look at:
> 1) Candidate has been active on dev@ and shown interest for the project
> 2) Candidate has submitted patches (not necessarily through dev@)
> 3) Candidate has otherwise done work to help corinthia.

I think that fulfilling either of these three criteria to a sufficient extent makes sense
as criteria. I think these should be guidelines to help people make their judgements however,
not necessarily an automatic conclusion, not least of which is that opinions about what considers
“sufficient” effort will differ.

I think we should also add participation on JIRA issues to this list. I would consider that
we should see both communication and code from a potential new committer in order to make
a judgement. JIRA is an important mode of communication aside from the mailing list. And of
course evidence of (non-trivial) coding work, especially when it’s done on the candidate’s
own initiative, would in my mind speak strongly in favour of a +1.

Regarding patches and attribution: Git has the ability to make a commit where the identities
of the author and committer are distinct. For example if Linus Torvalds sends me a patch,
and I decide it’s good enough to accept, then I can use the —author option on git commit
so that it’s recorded it was Linus’s work, not mine; I just put it in the repository.
This will help in tracking who has done what, and a non-committer’s patch doesn’t get
incorrectly attributed to the committer themselves.

Dr Peter M. Kelly

PGP key: <>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message