On 4/8/13 9:49 AM, "Michael A. Labriola" <labri...@digitalprimates.net>
wrote:
>> I don't think it would be possible to use github for the "official"
>> whiteboards as it brings up a number of issues for infra and the ASF
>> ie knowing who contributed, licensing issues etc etc basically the
>> normal issues for bit of donated code.
>>
>
> Ultimately I think github is the way to go. If that can't work, the other
> choice is for infra to create a repo per committer (github model). Git's
> strength is that of a distributed version control system. We keep trying to
> centralize it. The whiteboard don't belong in the same repo as the core code
> in the git model IMO.
>
> Regarding official whiteboards and github, its interesting. In some ways, IMO,
> it's better for the ASF. In this way nothing enters an ASF repo until it
> officially becomes part of the project and its better for me as I can quickly
> play and just commit code without worrying about headers, etc. Then we deal
> with those things prior to an import.
>
> Mike
>
I think Greg's point about working in the "open" is the critical factor.
How can we find out what other committers are doing if we use GitHub? Can
we get change notifications on the dev list?
Otherwise, I think the boundary is at the committer/non-committer level. As
a committer you will be working in Git on an Apache Server and you should
always be careful about what you are doing, if you are not a committer, you
can work with the Git mirrors and do whatever you want and generate a pull
request and then a committer has to review.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
