Ross Gardler wrote:
...
> One last point not raise yet. One of the dangers of giving early commit
> access is that you can end up with lots of code that is not supported.
> This is OK if it goes into the whiteboard where we can retire it easily.
> But full commit access means people are free to add stuff to trunk,
> often too early. The ANT project had a big problem with this and, as a
> result, they made it harder to become a committer.
A personal note.
I have done some some contributions to Ant, like the <xmlproperty> task,
the <import> task, and other bugfixes. They never invited me in. Why?
I don't know, but I know that I have never sent in unit tests, and not
always documentation. Furthermore I started the highly controversial
Centipede project, and have been stupidly aggressive myself in proposing
it and in attacking Maven.
To be honest, I really think that they did the right thing. My
dedication to Ant has always been of an avid user, and not of a core
developer, and I never really felt I wanted to become an Ant committer.
I don't know how, but they managed to understand that, and I think that
they did the right thing for Ant.
Probably, if they would have invited me in early, I would have given
them a lot of problems, so I can see the value in a higher barrier to
entry.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
