Ted Husted wrote:
>
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> > However, if they are 'independent entities', it is missing one thing -
> > the grouping of committers. I still chafe at the one large committer
> > group that spans every package idea. See 'Subproject Guidelines' #15 in
>
> I think it's mainly a security/human labor issue, Geir. There's a
> certain amount of work involved in setting up a new CVS repository, and
> adding committers to it.
Like how much? And isn't this a rather inverted approach? Shouldn't we
start with the model we want and then make the technology fit, rather
than designing the model around the support technology?
Sounds like we are scratching and hoping an itch will present itself...
> Until we can show cause, I think the best thing
> to do is use the status file to track the committers for each package,
> which will give us a leg-up in case we want to create more repositories
> later.
CVS can tell you who did what, can't it? I think that the committers
should be recognized for their work, so keeping that file is good, but
not as a proxy for partitioning.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
