Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2011
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 11:35:12AM -0500, David Golden wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: >> I agree with Tux that the last approver shouldn't be expected to do >> the work. We'll just see things stall at 2 that way. I think the >> original proposer should be the one to do the work. > > From the point of view of distributing the workload, that is equally good. > But yes, from the mechanics of avoiding logjams, your suggestion is better. It might also have the advantage of discouraging trivial cherrypick suggestions in the first place -- shifting the question from "do I think this is worthy of backport" to "is it worthy enough for *me* to do the backporting work"? (If someone does a lot of suggesting and then welshes on applying the commits once approved, then we can find some appropriately embarrassing way to encourage them to be more conservative in the future. :-) -- DavidThread Previous | Thread Next