I proposed the contributor model of branches in 2004, did not get much support for it. someone can create their contribution for others to evaluate when it is passed must they it can be voted on to be merged with the trunk. The value then, it would water down the trunk contributions.
Ean Schuessler sent the following on 5/4/2009 9:03 AM: > ----- "Adam Heath" wrote: >> Adam Heath wrote: >>> Have you considered doing a git or mercurial branch of all these changes? >> hg clone http://hg.webslinger.org/hg/ofbiz.apache.org/ > > This situation underscores a discussion that David and I were having about > distributed development. Andy's changes are a great example of the utility of > the "pull" model implied by GIT and Hg. Andy could make all of his changes in > some public "Andy" repo and then tell David to check them out. If David > thinks the changes are ready then he can pull them into his repo. Even if > David doesn't think they are ready, if some of us think Andy's patches are > useful and want to play along then we can sync our repositories with his and > use his code. > > Now a completely separate issue is how we determine whether someone's changes > are ready to go into the production repository. In a Linus style model, it > would just be up to David and then maybe a lot of people would also follow > Andy's branches closely (kind of like the Linux Realtime patch series). On > the other hand, we could have some democratic +1 type thing going on about > doing the merge. > > In any case, the distributed model affords a lot of flexibility without > people feeling like toes are getting stepped on. > -- BJ Freeman http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation http://bjfreeman.elance.com http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro Systems Integrator.
