Received: from PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU by po7.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA27242; Tue, 19 Dec 95 15:54:50 EST
Received: from pain.lcs.mit.edu by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA23166; Tue, 19 Dec 95 15:54:50 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pain.lcs.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) id PAA09809; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:16:05 -0500
Received: from jekyll.piermont.com by pain.lcs.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA09740 for <netbsd-developers@netbsd.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:01:52 -0500
Received: from localhost (perry@localhost) by jekyll.piermont.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA24877; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:00:23 -0500
Message-Id: <199512192000.PAA24877@jekyll.piermont.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>, netbsd-developers@netbsd.org
Subject: What can one check in? (was Re: the state of PRs.)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:43:13 PST."
             <199512191943.LAA03935@toccata.fugue.com> 
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:00:18 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Sender: owner-netbsd-developers@NetBSD.ORG
Precedence: first-class
X-Loop: netbsd-developers@NetBSD.ORG


Ted Lemon writes:
> > Here is a strawman to get rid of a whole year's worth of PRs: maybe we
> > ought to parcel out the very oldest pr's (say, the 100 oldest) to the
> > members of the developers list. That ends up being two (or three at
> > most) PRs each -- hardly an ominous burden or more than a single
> > individual can track.
> 
> Hm.  This sounds like a good idea, and I'd certainly be willing to do
> my part.  However, my impression is that checkins to the tree by
> non-core people (outside of the ports) are not welcome.  So this still
> leaves the core on the critical path.

Hmm. You pose a fascinating question.

I've asked a number of times about what the exact rules were on what I
could and couldn't check in. I've never been given a sold answer. I've
taken to checking what I was about to do with people and "just doing
it" if "the right people" seemed to think it was a good idea.

As an example, everyone seemed to think that doing the section 9 man
pages was a good idea and ought to be done, but no one seemed willing
to say to me "go and do it *now*" or "I will do it -- hand me the
files". It seemed clear, though, that core thought it was fine that it
be done. Finally I just did it. No one has complained.

I suspect that the thing that gets one yelled at is not fixing
something but fixing something in a controversial way, as well as
fixing something without asking enough people in advance "do you think
this is a good idea". I think that so long as one is fixing something
properly and has gotten buy in from the folks in the know one isn't
going to be castigated for straying outside of one's baileywick.

Perry
