On 2010-06-15 at 18:51:56 [+0200], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2010-06-15 at 13:46:48 [+0200], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > There was one objection, so how do we proceed with this > > > > proposition? > > > Since Ingo was the only one who object, I guess he should tell if > > > he > > > would feel comfortable in adding Andreas, or if we should do a vote > > > (which would probably have the same outcome, anyway, given our > > > previous > > > track record :-)). > > I haven't heard any convincing arguments ("It's not fair." is not an > > argument and I don't see how the "But if committer X would start > > kernel > > development..." would apply). > > I haven't seen much problems with the patches from Andreas that > affected the whole kernel - there were mostly subtle and welcome bug > fixes. And since the PPC port is not really something where code quality > is a major issue IMO, I personally don't see a problem with it when > Andreas "plays" with it a bit. Kernel development has a certain > learning curve, and porting work is not the worst part to get involved > with it. > > If you prefer to review all of his patches in a timely manner, I > wouldn't object to this either, but I don't really see the point in > keeping both of you busy for nothing. Nope, my point is exactly that I don't have the time and motivation to review all patches in a timely manner, which is why the "commit first, maybe review later" approach will probably result in a lot of code not being reviewed throroughly at all. Unless you intend to do that, that is. > > Given that no one else seems to object, we > > can save us the vote, I guess. > > Does that mean you're okay with it in the end? Nope. CU, Ingo