On Fre, 2003-03-21 at 00:28, José Fonseca wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:07:04AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Don, 2003-03-20 at 22:53, José Fonseca wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:48:21PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > > > > - Extend CVS access to regular contributors. Use > > > > > scripts or whatever to control access to subtrees if you > > > > > want. > > > > > > > > This comes up from time to time, and I'm sure will get discussed > > > > even more. I know there have been offers to others for CVS commit > > > > access, and some have refused and some have accepted. The > > > > consensus of who gets commit access has always been - if they show > > > > competance at sending patches in, then after a period of time, no > > > > doubt they'll get it. It's the same as the DRI, but with more of a > > > > prolonged period of evaluating that persons patches. I guess this > > > > 'prolonged' period, is the stickling point for most. > > > > > > Why not simply have a second CVS repository, where most development > > > would take place under, while the current repository would be the > > > one used for (pre-/post-) releases with coarse-grain commits. Like > > > stable and development branches, but with the branches being on > > > different repositories. > > > > Why a second repository then, instead of just branches, and maybe > > restricting most developers to commit to branches and only allow some > > to commit to the trunk, for example? I don't see much advantage in a > > separate repository (but I may simply be missing it, clues appreciated > > :), but it makes merges more difficult. > > A cleaner seperation I guess. According to > http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg00846.html , using > access control in CVS is not an option.
I don't think that's strictly needed: break the rules intentionally (!) and kiss write access good bye. :) > The model described by http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg00853.html > is that every developer should have his own repository and submit a patch to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, I wouldn't call this several repositories but replicating a single repository. Seems a middle way to me. > My proposal is, instead of every developer/sub-project maintaining it > own repository outside xfree86.org, host these repositories as branches > on single (but seperate) repository under the Xfree86.org umbrella. And how would moving stuff between these repositories be easier than between the existing separate repositories? > It would be less likely to forks and spin-offs originate, where as in > the current situation they seem to proliferate. And I don't see in what > way would things more difficult as they already are. Sure, because they are separate repositories now. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Tablet PC. Does your code think in ink? You could win a Tablet PC. Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing. What are you waiting for? http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
