> Pragmatically I think if a community voted to temporarily grant access > to its CVS repository, I'll bet it > could be done.
More than likely...point of discussing it is to try and reach an agreement about whether it should be done... > >"Why is increased granularity in role/right/responsibility bad in > >general?" > > > 1. Because it is a cop out. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=cop%20out (I'm learning today =) which one do you mean? > 2. If this is about community and not code then we want participating > members in the community don't follow...you mean limited community participating should not be an option if you want right X? > 3. "granularity" is a clever way of putting it, but thats not what this > is about I think there's a close relationship. You could also talk about decoupling, as Pier coined it, leading to: "Why is decoupling sets of rights/responsibilities from each other a bad thing?" Note that doing so would lead to an increase in "roles", ie a more granular system. Just my view of the world... > 4. "Code dumps" are white elephants one does not automatically lead to another. Increased "granularity" ("right/responsibility set decoupling") doesn't mean an increase in code dumps. > 5. Opening the floodgates to CVS is bad (for so many reasons), same as for 4. > 6. If you trust them in the repository, you accept their code, then they > should be part of the community, yes. But there are various ways of participating in the community. You can accept their code and trust them in the repository, and they can be a member of the community, and still not be a committer. Well, not now, but the thought is to change that. This is about the specific case of creating a role that provides cvs access and no other rights, though. > >"Why is defining a new role that is in between the currently defined > >roles of contributor and committer in terms of rights and > >responsibilities a bad thing?" > > > > > I've explained this sufficiently in this and other emails. except I still don't get it =) > I do not > think defining a role for folks whose work is not CVS-based but just as > relevant if its clearly defined. you ment to end with "is stupid/bad" or something, right? On that the two of us agree, then? (now for the rest of the world...) > Overall I'm happy with the > organization as it is and do not think it needs radical social engineering. of course. But maintainance is cool. cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
