From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5591 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753729Ab1IFSlT (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:41:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4E6669E6.5030800@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:43:50 +0200 From: Hans de Goede MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Krufky CC: Devin Heitmueller , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux Media Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] alsa_stream: port changes made on xawtv3 References: <1315322996-10576-1-git-send-email-mchehab@redhat.com> <4E663EE2.3050403@redhat.com> <4E666417.9090706@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On 09/06/2011 08:35 PM, Michael Krufky wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 09/06/2011 06:24 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote: >> >> >> >>> I've been thinking for a while that perhaps the project should be >>> renamed (or I considered prepending "kl" onto the front resulting in >>> it being called "kl-tvtime"). This isn't out of vanity but rather my >>> concern that the fork will get confused with the original project (for >>> example, I believe Ubuntu actually already calls their modified tree >>> tvtime 1.0.3). I'm open to suggestions in this regards. >> >> I think that what should be done is contact the debian / ubuntu maintainers, >> get any interesting fixes they have which the kl version misses merged, >> and then just declare the kl version as being the new official upstream >> (with the blessing of the debian / ubuntu guys, and if possible also >> with the blessing of the original authors). >> >> This would require kl git to be open to others for pushing, or we >> could move the tree to git.linuxtv.org (which I assume may be >> easier then for you to make the necessary changes to give >> others push rights on kl.org). > > Hans, > > Everybody is welcome to contribute to open source projects, but global > contribution doesn't mean that a given server be opened up to commits > by the general public. I didn't write open to commits by the general public, now did I? I wrote open to commits by others. For most upstream projects it is quite normal that several people have push rights to the master tree. This actually is quite a good idea, as it avoids adding a SPOF into the chain. It means development can continue if one of the maintainers is on vacation for a a few weeks, or just having a period in his/her life where he is too busy to actively contribute to a spare time project. Regards, Hans