Whoa, thanks for the vote of confidence Erik!!
I am interested in eventually becoming a committer (and I have
submitted my Apache ICLA) but I don't want to rush/force the process
or anything.
I was just wondering if there is a more lightweight approach in
between non-committer and committer that restricts rights to just
branches. Or even something like a committer creates the branch and
then grants commit access for just this one private branch to a
non-committer. It sounds like Subversion's per-directory
authorization controls could indeed support this use case but maybe
this is not typically done.
Mike
Erik Hatcher wrote:
You'd still have to be voted in as a committer, but privileges could
certainly be partitioned easily to just branches if we wanted to make it
so narrowly constrained. And you'd be subject to the Apache CLA
paperwork too.
I think you've (*grin*) the level of contribution that calling for a
vote for your committership is in order anyway.
Erik
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to allow non-committers (= me!) to commit only to
branches in Subversion? Is such a thing even feasible, or ever done
in other projects?
I'm just asking because for something like the lockless commits patch
it would be very helpful as I iterate with people (thanks Yonik!) who
have reviewed it to be able to just commit my changes to a dedicated
"private" branch and this way they can then just "svn up" or
use "svn diff" to see only the diffs between my first patch &
the fixes, etc.
It would also have been helpful in the original development to have
source control fallback as I was building out the first patch. It
always makes me nervous accumulating long-living mods outside of
source control in the first place. Better to commit often.
It's obviously feasible to just keep re-submitting entire patches with
each iteration but it sure would be nice to be able to use svn instead!
Mike
