From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 2MaQICVJU19haAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 08:15:33 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id 0B5jHCVJU19SFQAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 08:15:33 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BFE09403A9 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 08:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55770 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kETMB-0002nU-3v for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 04:15:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35086) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kETLl-0002m3-MT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 04:15:05 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:60252) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kETLl-0006Xo-AA; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 04:15:05 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e35:2fe1:f780:68c6:8f4c:dae1:2381] (port=38880 helo=guerry) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kETLk-0005Nu-PJ; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 04:15:05 -0400 Received: by guerry (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ACD9F1A60D46; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 10:15:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Bastien To: Jack Kamm Subject: Re: [PATCH] ob-python.el: Fix issue with sessions on remote machines Organization: GNU References: <87h7t16red.fsf@pc.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87zh6syqym.fsf@gmail.com> <875z9c93tv.fsf@gmail.com> <871rjhq31a.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0x9qbd3.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2020 10:15:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87k0x9qbd3.fsf@gmail.com> (Jack Kamm's message of "Fri, 04 Sep 2020 18:08:08 -0700") Message-ID: <877dt84p2x.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Christian Vanderwall , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-TUID: 2GvpdSuSoD7W Hi Jack, Jack Kamm writes: >> Would you be okay to add yourself as the ob-python.el maintainer? > > Sure, I've added myself as maintainer to the header of ob-python.el. Thanks! >> I suggest we have a policy that "Org maintainer(s)" have the last >> words on everything in Org's core, but that individual maintainers, >> when known from the header section of an Elisp file, have the very >> "first look" on bug reports and feature suggestions. >> >> WDYT? > > I'm trying to review ob-python related patches and mail as I notice > them, and monitor the list for mails with "python" in the subject, > though some may fall through the cracks occasionally, especially when my > workload is heavy. > > Should I merge in patches to ob-python.el, as I did here? Or should I > simply review them, and let the core maintainers merge them in after > review? Sorry, my policy proposal was incomplete: - A local maintainer is expected to reply to requests and bug reports regarding the local functionalities he oversees. - A local maintainer can commit changes directly to the file(s) he maintains (either submitted changes or his own). - Core maintainers have the final word on any change in any file (so in case of a disagreement with a local maintainer, core maintainers have priority.) In general, I would like to encourage "optimistic merging" from more "local" maintainers. Does that sound right? When in doubt, always discuss changes first. Thanks! -- Bastien