On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > > 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? > GitHub supports organizations (free for open source orgs) using which we can configure notifications to be sent to any email alias/list we choose. > > 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.
