I'm in favour for the voting (waiting 3 days is no crisis) - and often people find stuff I've not found yet. I also see your point about access control.
So I guess a good middle way would be to use git hosted at the Haus. 2011/8/29 Christopher Hunt <hu...@internode.on.net> > On 30/08/2011, at 4:09 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote: > > > I think the github bit is part of the issue, also I think the release > > process should be left up to the plugin at this point and mojo's ought > > to do away with the whole vote, wait a couple of days, release > > process. It makes sense on maven core but the plugins in mojo are so > > diverse it makes little sense to delay plugin releases on votes > > anymore. > > > > change to git and remove the voting requirements on the mojo project > > and I think things will aggregate back together again > > > You cite the Codehaus voting process as a detrimental thing; I see it as > rigour that is a good thing. I can't say that I always enjoy the scrutiny of > what happens when I release something, but I sure do appreciate it. > > If you don't like The Codehaus quality assurance processes then simply fork > your project entirely to Github and don't bother with The Codehaus at all. > > The scm issue in summary: > > Github hosted Git == no MOJO approval process around who becomes a > committer. > Codehaus hosted Git == benefits of Git while retaining our committer > approval process and leveraging our other QA processes. > > Kind regards, > Christopher > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > -- -- David J. M. Karlsen - http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidkarlsen
