We control commit to our project, so... Yes. We're good. When I get to my laptop, or Branko beats me to it, we'll be set. On Jan 9, 2013 7:59 AM, "Gary Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It seems that everyone who is for this has made a very good case. I took a > bit of time to play devil's advocate to see if I could find good enough > objections for our usage but I think everything is covered. > > Just to check.. is this is a decision we can make independently of the > IPMC? > > Anyway +1 to the suggestion. > > Cheers, > Gary > > On 08/01/13 11:20, Greg Stein wrote: > >> We made the change just a week or so ago, so yeah: no metrics yet. >> >> Branko put it well: why not remove technical barriers. If an Allura dev >> shows up with a patch/tweak, and we say "ooh. nice", then our devs merely >> say +1 and the contributor commits. No ACL or LDAP changes. No patch >> downloaded/applied. Just an email saying "thanks". >> >> This is version control. Anything can be rolled back. I like to turn the >> question around: why *should* we erect technical barriers? (yes, we still >> have social barriers, and expect people to engage) >> >> (obviously: +1 to the OP) >> >> Cheers, >> -g >> On Jan 8, 2013 4:28 AM, "Peter Koželj" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I guess the SVN's change probably isn't long enough to have any feedback >>> on >>> how well that works, >>> but I do agree that this is an option worth trying. I guess we >>> can always switch back if it does not work. >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> On 7 January 2013 22:58, Joe Dreimann <[email protected]**> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I see a far bigger risk of not receiving contributions than of receiving >>>> poor quality / malicious contributions at this point. If this is a >>>> proven >>>> approach for svn, I have no objection to the change. >>>> >>>> - Joe >>>> >>>> ________________________ >>>> @jdreimann - Twitter >>>> Sent from my phone >>>> >>>> On 7 Jan 2013, at 21:06, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> There was recently a long debate on the (private) members@ list about >>>>> lowering technical barriers for commit access. As a result, the >>>>> Subversion project has already changed its access control settings so >>>>> that any ASF committer can make changes to the Subversion source code. >>>>> >>>>> I propose that Bloodhound does the same. >>>>> >>>>> I have to point out that making this change would /not/ mean that >>>>> everyone has license to fiddle with the Bloodhound source code without >>>>> prior consent from the BH dev community. Project member status must >>>>> still be earned, but the proposed change means that contributions from >>>>> ASF committers would use up a lot less of the BH developers' time. >>>>> >>>>> The proponents of this change are hoping that eventually, most of the >>>>> ASF projects will move to a more relaxed access control model. >>>>> Bloodhound, having a relatively small and homogeneous community, would >>>>> likely profit by lowering the bar for new contributors. >>>>> >>>>> -- Brane >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Branko Čibej >>>>> Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com >>>>> >>>>> >
