On 08/19/2010 12:48 PM, Stack wrote:
I do not see how a combined contributor list could act as friction on
the ongoing break-up of the hadoop project -- something I'm in favor
of -- nor get in the way of the development of distinct mr/hdfs
user+dev communities; it seems to me that that project can progress
independent of who can commit where.
I agree.
Many projects manage such things with trust, not with rigid ACLs. Some
committers are trusted to commit just test code, some just
documentation, and some deep implementation details in particular areas
of the code. But should any committer wish to manage a release, or even
commit a patch outside of their normal domain of expertise (if it's been
reviewed by someone with expertise in that domain) they can. Over time
they can gain trust in new areas of the project. In such projects,
adding a committer merely implies that you trust someone not to overstep
their abilities. If someone consistently suggests that patches are
ready for commit which others feel are not, then they won't earn that
trust and be invited to become a committer. Thus committership is not
about deep technical abilities, but personal trust not to violate social
contracts. Erecting walls within the community of trust via ACLs
doesn't seem productive.
Doug
