Forum: Ruby-core Candidacy to 2.1 branch maintainer.

5cf8f058a4c094bb708174fb43e7a387?d=identicon&s=25 Tomoyuki Chikanaga (Guest)
on 2014-04-17 14:00
(Received via mailing list)
Hello,

As announced by Usa  Nakamura at [ruby-core:62051],
he take over 2.0.0 branch maintenance work from me.
Many thanks to Usa-san in advance. I believe he is the most
appropriate person for that job.

And I'm willing to take over maintenance of 2.1 branch from naruse-san
if matz and naruse-san admit.
Of-course my maintenance policy will be same as of 2.0.0.

matz, naruse-san, how about my proposal?

And does anyone have counter proposal for 2.1 maintenance?

Best Regard,
Eabad423977cfc6873b8f5df62b848a6?d=identicon&s=25 SHIBATA Hiroshi (Guest)
on 2014-04-17 15:30
(Received via mailing list)
> And does anyone have counter proposal for 2.1 maintenance?

I hope to support you. Can I commit for 2.1 branch?

Matz, naruse-san

How about two people maintenance to stable version?
5cf8f058a4c094bb708174fb43e7a387?d=identicon&s=25 Tomoyuki Chikanaga (Guest)
on 2014-04-21 18:23
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

> I hope to support you. Can I commit for 2.1 branch?
Supports for release engineering are welcome.
But I think backport management have some complexities.
The maintainers should have cooperate closely if they have equal
authority.
My proposal is as below.

1. Co-maintainer can request permission for individual backport/release.
2. Maintainer approve it (or do it by myself)
3. Co-maintainer can commit maintenance branch or release package.

How about this scheme?

Anyway I appreciate to your proposal :)

Regards,


2014-04-17 22:29 GMT+09:00 SHIBATA Hiroshi <shibata.hiroshi@gmail.com>:
Eabad423977cfc6873b8f5df62b848a6?d=identicon&s=25 SHIBATA Hiroshi (Guest)
on 2014-04-22 00:20
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

> 1. Co-maintainer can request permission for individual backport/release.
> 2. Maintainer approve it (or do it by myself)
> 3. Co-maintainer can commit maintenance branch or release package.
>
> How about this scheme?

I agreed this scheme.
Thank you for your suggestion.
6738588a11b852833edf6aec90ef6fa3?d=identicon&s=25 Yukihiro Matsumoto (Guest)
on 2014-04-26 10:26
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

I agree with the scheme.

              matz.


In message "Re: [ruby-core:62119] Re: Candidacy to 2.1 branch
maintainer."
    on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:22:28 +0900, Tomoyuki Chikanaga
<nagachika00@gmail.com> writes:
|
|Hi,
|
|> I hope to support you. Can I commit for 2.1 branch?
|Supports for release engineering are welcome.
|But I think backport management have some complexities.
|The maintainers should have cooperate closely if they have equal authority.
|My proposal is as below.
|
|1. Co-maintainer can request permission for individual backport/release.
|2. Maintainer approve it (or do it by myself)
|3. Co-maintainer can commit maintenance branch or release package.
|
|How about this scheme?
|
|Anyway I appreciate to your proposal :)
|
|Regards,
5cf8f058a4c094bb708174fb43e7a387?d=identicon&s=25 Tomoyuki Chikanaga (Guest)
on 2014-04-28 17:58
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

> I agree with the scheme.
>
>                                                        matz.
Thank you for your reply.

naruse-san, how do you think?



2014-04-26 17:25 GMT+09:00 Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby.or.jp>:
9361878d459f1709feec780518946ee5?d=identicon&s=25 NARUSE, Yui (Guest)
on 2014-04-30 04:54
(Received via mailing list)
I agree with the scheme.

2014-04-29 0:58 GMT+09:00 Tomoyuki Chikanaga <nagachika00@gmail.com>:
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.