Problem/Motivation
@Gábor Hojtsy, @lauriii, @yoroy, and @larowlan have been performing their roles as provisional committers for more than six months now, and they're all doing a fantastic job in their respective roles. They all agreed to be promoted to full committers.
Proposed resolution
Update MAINTAINERS.txt!
There are two versions of this patch: the mimimum scope, and then one that reorders the section to be grouped by product, framework, and release manager roles. I propose the second because with the larger committer team it's getting difficult to read. When a contributor needs feedback on a particular area, say framework manager feedback, they'll look for that first and then look at the names. So I propose grouping it by role as we do the rest of MAINTAINERS.txt.
The patch also removes the D7 committers to avoid confusion and further help with readability. (I'm not sure why they were there. The rest of the file is D8 maintainers only and the D8 committers aren't in the D7 MAINTAINERS.txt.)
Remaining tasks
- NR.
- Confirm whether the "B" patch works.
- Public signoff from Dries.
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#6 | interdiff.txt | 1.35 KB | Gábor Hojtsy |
#6 | 2921282-6.patch | 2.62 KB | Gábor Hojtsy |
unprovisional-reorganize-B.patch | 2.49 KB | xjm | |
unprovisional-A.patch | 412 bytes | xjm | |
Comments
Comment #2
Gábor HojtsyHm, I don't think the A one was rolled the right way(?). Either way, the B one looks much better, I don't think its a problem we repeat names, we do that for the rest of the file as well for people who are involved across areas. Let's push this to signoff for Dries. I believe the individual maintainers already agreed to be made full maintainers.
Comment #3
Wim Leers🎉
Comment #4
Dries CreditAttribution: Dries commentedWe discussed this with the core committers and we all felt really good about dropping 'provisional' from their titles.
Next, I talked to @Gábor Hojtsy, @lauriii, @yoroy, and @larowlan and they are also comfortable with dropping the 'provisional' from their title.
So, let's do this!
Comment #5
effulgentsia CreditAttribution: effulgentsia at Acquia commentedYay to the issue title! And +1 to the structure of patch B, and to removing the D7 maintainers, since 7.x is its own branch with its own MAINTAINERS.txt file.
Just some nits:
The original file has people alphabetical by last name. This patch does not. E.g., it puts Byron before Buytaert and Reeves before Eskola.
I like this subheading. For symmetry, should we also add a "Backend" subheading for the framework managers who are not under the "Frontend" subheading?
Comment #6
Gábor Hojtsy@effulgentsia: I agree those make sense. In that case though I also looked at whether listing BDFL, Product, Framework and Release managers in this order makes sense. Why would Product come before others? (It is not alphabetical either). It does not signify a hierarchy I believe either. But https://www.drupal.org/contribute/core/maintainers also lists them the same order multiple times. So I ended up keeping that order.
Moving back to RTBC given the minor text changes.
Comment #7
catchCommitted cd1fdae and pushed to 8.5.x. Thanks!
Comment #9
kim.pepperCongrats!!
Comment #10
yoroy CreditAttribution: yoroy at Roy Scholten commentedThank you!
Comment #11
xjmYay, thanks! Congrats everyone.
Regarding the ordering of "product, framework, and release", I think we always say it in that order because it reflects the signoff order and the normal flow for significant changes. Product managers sign off first even at the idea/concept stage, framework managers sign off typically for implementations, and release managers have the last signoff for when and how stuff gets added, postponed to a later version, etc. So I think it's not a hierarchy so much as a chronological order. :)
Comment #13
xjmI backported this to 8.4.x as well since committers maintain both minor versions.
Comment #14
dawehnerCongratulations, well deserved!