On 10/20/06, Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/19/06, Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Timothy: If it's ok for you, i would give everyone who volunteers
> to help with a driver svn write access.
In general, I have no problem with that. But are there any potential
problems? How do other projects handle, say, rogues?
Rather than self-appointment, perhaps we should add a thin democratic
factor to giving people access? I want to avoid making it a pain, but
I don't want to let just ANYONE have write access.
Or am I being paranoid?
I believe people should start by submitting patches/files(or link to
them) to the list,
and after a period of "test" receive write acess if requested. That's
how it works
on most projects with centralized version control.
Maybe it's a little too early to think about that, but how are
diverging direction with
regards to software development be dealed with? Lot's of "subprojects"
in the tree?
What are going to be the parameter for projects to go into the tree?(Think about
con kovilas realtime patch, or Reiser4 filesystem).
Asking mostly how the "peer revision" system would work, because it might get
unmanageable or confusing to new comers.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
