On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 02:46:46PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote: > On 12/12/2009 1:48 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 07:12:13PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote: > >> On Saturday 12. December 2009 19.02.14 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >>> Whoopsie! Looks like this project has chosen to restrict commit > >>> access. > >>> > >> Then it would not be a kde-developers project. > >> > > well, actually, most likely it would. the hook would allow > > foo-developers through without a question, while kde-developers > > would get the blurb. after all, the restricted group still needs the > > ability to force a push, and kde-developers is just perfect for > > that. > > But why? I honestly don't understand it. Why, if the fix needs to go > in, couldn't the kde-developer person simply submit a merge request to > foo-developers? Isn't that kind of the point? > the concept simply has to have a "backdoor", otherwise there is no way it would be accepted by the kde community. heck, i myself would refuse it otherwise. after all, the ability to quickly fix compilation (and not have everyone do the same until a maintainer does it) is one of the "key features" of the "kde way" of handling the repository. so as far as i'm concerend, it's just a matter of latency. for some others, it is probably a matter of culture or ideology.
> To me it seems like the situation you are describing is something we > already have a system for dealing with...what am I missing here? > we have that problem only for acl-protected areas, which are a few. i'm proposing a "soft acl" to be able to have more acls without disturbing legitimate exceptional workflows too much. _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
