Re: [patch,committed] Make Fortran maintainers "Non-Autopoiesis Maintainers"

[Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:48:22PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> 
> I have no objection to this as a custom for GFortran, certainly -- I 
> think it's a very good idea, and as a custom I very much support it. 
> However, there have historically been reasonable exceptions to it.  In 
> particular, I've committed several documentation patches without review, 
> and I have seen a few small patches submitted by maintainers for 
> comments rather than a formal review and then committed when there were 
> no dissenting comments.  My understanding at the time was that these 
> were entirely acceptable things to do; is this still true, or no?
> 

As the Fortran maintainer the pre-approved your doc patches (and
Daniel's patches) I feel I should comment.  The gfortran docs
were in such a mess that neither you nor Danial could possibly
commit a change that would make the docs worse.  Well, I guess
you could have, but your previous involvement in the mailing list
suggested otherwise.  My other objective (besides better docs)
was to lure you into the realm of bug fixer and developer.  It
appears that I succeed. :-)

I haven't looked at the guidelines for this new category in that
I doubt it will change the day-to-day interaction of the gfortran
developers.  In general, we ask for reviews when necessary and
commit obvious fixes as they arise.  In my 4+ years of hacking on
gfortran, I cannot recall a single dispute among the developers.
Sure, there's been disagreement, but not dispute.

PS:  The 4 year anniversity of my first commit is coming up:

2003-06-24  Steven G. Kargl  <kargls@attbi.com>`

-- 
Steve