Why? It's not about process per se, it's about providence and copyright assurances.
On 7 Mar 2010, at 00:24, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > I think for social and community reasons requiring the same process > for doc changes as we do for code contributions is a huge barrier to > documentation contributions. > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> Oh, technically we could. The issue here is social and organisational. >> >> On 6 Mar 2010, at 23:35, Paul Davis wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6 Mar 2010, at 16:48, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>>> >>>>>> That cannot happen. The official site is kept in ASF Subversion. >>>>> >>>>> This is orthogonal to the rest of the proposal. >>>> >>>> No it's not. >>>> >>>> The main site has to be from Subversion, and any additions or merges to >>>> Subversion have to be provided by someone who has signed a copyright >>>> agreement, or checked the box in JIRA, or otherwise indicated that they >>>> are allowed to contribute the work, and are happy for it to be licensed >>>> the way it will be licensed. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Noah, >>> >>> Can you point me to the information concerning the main site being >>> required to be served from SVN? The FAQ [1] for the Confluence wiki >>> explicitly covers using a dump as a project's main site, so I can't >>> fathom that we wouldn't be able to pull in a subdirectory from outside >>> SVN. The restrictions covered in the FAQ are that we can't put user >>> contributions into a release tarball or in SVN, but no one is >>> suggesting that since it'd require all contributions to be covered by >>> an ICLA or similar. >>> >>> AFAICT, this would be equivalent to us mirroring the coverage reports >>> generated by buildbot. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/ >> >>
