From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:45:02 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] U-Boot git usage model
In-Reply-To: <1349979213.6903.11@snotra>
References: <20121011191658.43a0df72@lilith>
	<1349979213.6903.11@snotra>
Message-ID: <20121011204502.54331c88@lilith>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Scott,

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:13:33 -0500, Scott Wood
<scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:

> FWIW I think putting policy documents in a wiki, without any  
> guidance on who's supposed to edit it or how changes get approved, is a  
> bad idea.  Why not put policy documents in the git-managed source  
> tree?  And changes would be
> proposed, discussed, and accepted/rejected like any other change.  Plus  
> there'd be at least a chance of a commit message showing rationale.

While I can see the benefits you find in this, is it not based on
the unspoken axiom that the project's policies should necessarily be
subject to a democratic process? Plus... in order for this process to
be put in place, a process should be defined for discussing this
process... argh. :)


> In any case, if this is the policy, we should not be saying that we  
> follow the Linux policy.

Agreed -- see Stephen's reply rightly correcting me re Linux.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.