On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 05:31 AM, Glen Stampoultzis wrote:
At 01:09 PM 19/06/2003, you wrote:
Why NOT have shared documents? I've heard it said that the CVS
organization
is the barrier. OK, so why not look at what reasonable steps could
relieve
that barrier? What would happen if we had
There's the committers module. Every committer has access to this one.
On 19.06.2003 05:09:39 Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Why NOT have shared documents? I've heard it said that the CVS organization
is the barrier. OK, so why not look at what reasonable steps could relieve
that barrier? What
There's the committers module. Every committer has access to this one.
I know. It isn't part of the site deployment, but I suppose that it could
be used that way, perhaps under the docs/ directory (for example), with a
small change to the update commands. Also, the Committers module is, AIUI,
From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 8:52 AM
There's the committers module. Every committer has access to this one.
On 19.06.2003 05:09:39 Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Why NOT have shared documents? I've heard it said that the CVS organization
is the
Sander,
You said, Hang on a minute. Why does everyone need commit access to this
one? All ASF members have commit access to it. I had asked, What would
happen if we had an Incubator module open to all ASF Committers? Would that
lower the barrier and increase reuse?
Are you referring to ASF
At 01:09 PM 19/06/2003, you wrote:
Why NOT have shared
documents? I've heard it said that the CVS organization
is the barrier. OK, so why not look at what reasonable steps could
relieve
that barrier? What would happen if we had an Incubator module open
to all
ASF Committers? Would that lower the
Tim O'Brien wrote:
no, the barrier is not high. Yes, it is too high for many, many potential
contributors.
No it isn't, I think you are confusing the fact that people don't
generally like to contribute documentation. Instead of lowering the
barriers for potential contributors, we need to do a
Glen,
The reason why it hasn't been done is simple... because no one
has actually stepped up to find all the redundant information
and send patches to the various projects to fix it up. CVS
access isn't the problem. Finding someone with the itch, time
and motivation is.
That is the answer
I don't see the issue as people not wanting to write documentation,
just individuals taking the path of least resistance.
I agree.
Honestly, I'm curious as to how much authority the individual PMCs
should be exercising to define these processes. Even a process as
simple as creating an
I'm tired of having someone propose a new committer because he
or she thinks that the patch submission process is too difficult.
In my case, I'm talking about existing Committers. *If* CVS commit rights
for Committers are widely perceived to be a barrier, then perhaps there
ought to be a place
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think you are confusing the fact that people don't generally
like to contribute documentation.
Although I consider this orthogonal to shared pages (people can cut and
paste vs. link on the Wiki as easily as the static sites), I do believe that
Tim,
you missed my point. Sander asked whether commit access is, or is seen
as, a barrier.
The answer is: yes. It is one of many barriers that we have. You're
pointing out that
those are in place for a reason. Well, yeah.
For example, commit priviledge is something which is earned by
12 matches
Mail list logo
