On Thursday 20 March 2003 02:53 pm, you wrote: > Why not simply have a second CVS repository, where most development > would take place under, while the current repository would be the one > used for (pre-/post-) releases with coarse-grain commits. Like stable > and development branches, but with the branches being on different > repositories. > > This could give an effective answer to people desires: > - CVS write access of the 2nd repository could be given to more people, > with less > - The core developers would retain full control over the releases > - Patches could be commited faster and could be tested more > effectively. Less burden on the core developers as patch would > already been tested by a regular developer and verified by users > until a decision to include on the 1st repository has to be made. > - Nightly builds of the 2nd repository could be made available so that > users could test the lastest fixes and/or new features. > > It seems a more scalable and open development model without damage for > the existing rights. At least it would be a step forward from the > current deteriorating situation. >
Sounds a lot like the way Linus manages the Linux kernel, no? That system is successful so far. Nick ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Tablet PC. Does your code think in ink? You could win a Tablet PC. Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing. What are you waiting for? http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
