[#61822] Plan Developers Meeting Japan April 2014 — Zachary Scott <e@...>
I would like to request developers meeting around April 17 or 18 in this mo=
14 messages
2014/04/03
[#61825] Re: Plan Developers Meeting Japan April 2014
— Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
2014/04/03
It's good if we have a meeting then.
[#61826] Re: Plan Developers Meeting Japan April 2014
— Zachary Scott <e@...>
2014/04/03
Regarding openssl issues, I=E2=80=99ve discussed possible meeting time with=
[#61833] Re: Plan Developers Meeting Japan April 2014
— Martin Bo煬et <martin.bosslet@...>
2014/04/03
Hi,
[#61847] Re: Plan Developers Meeting Japan April 2014
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/04/03
Martin Boテ殕et <martin.bosslet@gmail.com> wrote:
[#61849] Re: Plan Developers Meeting Japan April 2014
— Zachary Scott <e@...>
2014/04/04
I will post summary of meeting on Google docs after the meeting.
[#61852] Re: Plan Developers Meeting Japan April 2014
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/04/04
Zachary Scott <e@zzak.io> wrote:
[#61860] Re: Plan Developers Meeting Japan April 2014
— Zachary Scott <e@...>
2014/04/04
I=E2=80=99m ok with redmine, thanks for bringing up your concern!
[#62076] Candidacy to 2.1 branch maintainer. — Tomoyuki Chikanaga <nagachika00@...>
Hello,
7 messages
2014/04/17
[#62078] Re: Candidacy to 2.1 branch maintainer.
— SHIBATA Hiroshi <shibata.hiroshi@...>
2014/04/17
> And does anyone have counter proposal for 2.1 maintenance?
[ruby-core:62173] Re: Candidacy to 2.1 branch maintainer.
From:
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date:
2014-04-26 08:25:13 UTC
List:
ruby-core #62173
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,