Am 07/25/2013 08:47 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Dave Fisher<dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 07/24/2013 07:07 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM, janI<j...@apache.org> wrote:
On 24 July 2013 18:34, Rob Weir<robw...@apache.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM, janI<j...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi.
I have followed the discussions in here, and have seen a number of
not
wanted changed in our important artifacts happen.
I think it is important, that items like our logos, release notes
etc.
cannot be changed by accident. I believe it happens by accident and
that
could avoided with a simple measure.
It might be useful to think of this in terms of Review-Then-Commit
(RTC) versus Commit-Then-Review (CTR) rules. Once we clarify these
and when they apply, then we can discuss whether additional
technological means are needed to enforce this.
For the wiki the general rules is CTR for all users with an account.
No additional karma is needed.
The for resources in Subversion the general rule is CTR for all
commiters. Additionally, the public can submit patches, to the list,
attached to BZ issues, or using the CMS anonymous submission tool.
This then is effectively RTC since a committer must first reviews the
patch.
Those are the default postures, but there are exceptions. For
example, as we approach a Release Candidate we switch into RTC for the
trunk code. We only make changes after a bug has been proposed and
approved as a "release blocker" on the dev list.
So we could simply adopt a RTC for certain resources at certain times.
For example, Release Notes once a release occurs, are RTC. The
project logos, once approved and published, are RTC. If we agree to
such things there are lightweight ways of reminding ourselves. For
example, we could have a README file in directories that are RTC that
explain this. That should be enough for conscientious,
well-intentioned volunteers,
I am normally strong against limitations, but I would like to suggest
that
these items are moved to one (or more) subdirs, where the commit
right is
restricted e.x. to PMC members or even less. Doing so will not
prohibit
anybody from making their changes but simply avoid that the changes
are
product wide.
Personally I think this is a RTC versus CTR question. This
distinction is a tool that we don't invoke as often as we could.
Maybe that would be sufficient, at least in SVN.
Also, I think even a PMC member should be following CTR rules when it
is in effect. I don't think of a PMC member as a higher class of
committer in terms of what they have access to.
I think you misunderstood me. I agree with the RTC/CTR discussion, but
that does not prevent the accidential commit, I think it has happened
to
most of us, that we commit our changes, and we overlook that another
file
is also committed.
I disagree that we have a a problem with accidental overwrites in SVN
in cases where it is clear that RTC is in effect. I think the problem
is that it is not clear when CTR is in effect.
I don't think that it will help to prevent every error of this kind.
Also, I don't see how your solution helps with truly accidental
commits. Surely PMC members make errors as well?
Of course, as they are humans, too. ;-)
But you don't become a PMC member by default. You need to show some
things that you have understand how the page is turning. And then I doubt
that such error would happen.
So, I also think that we should do more than just turn the CTR into RTC
and expect that no mistakes will happen after that.
My 2 ct.
I think that there are a few things to think about.
We can all understand when RTC and CTR are in effect. These are different
in different systems.
In the two years since OpenOffice has been with Apache, in nearly every
case we have always had discussion on ANY change/commit in anything we
consider "source" that is not applied to a bug. So this excludes most of
the material on the web site with the exception of the new logo svgs. At
least that is my impression.
This is not really clear in our Orientation modules. And, I think in most
people's minds, knowing when to go from CTR to RTC is not particularly
clear either. There are some implicit assumptions -- like don't mess with
SNAPSHOT builds -- but I think it would be better if we stated this
explicitly.
I also suggest that any artifact we feel should be considered "source" --
like the new logo svg files -- be put, if not in /trunk, in an SVN area
that has some distinguishing name so that it is clear to committers this is
really a RTC area.
I like that idea. Something like /branding, a peer of /trunk and
/ooo-site. That can hold the branding related source. But we can
then also have specific bitmap versions checked into the website, for
direct use. But we keep the source versions separate.
+1, one for all.
Marcus
We are talking about a situation where a commit was made that was not
acceptable. Since it was in svn we can always revert. In other systems we
have other means of restoration.
I don't think we need extra security. We may need a review of our systems
to know what is in effect. WIth that in hand we can discuss what policy
changes to make.
Whatever changes might be made they should be the smallest possible and
kept simple.
Regards,
Dave
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
