On 10/19/05, Christian Ohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday, 19 October 2005 at 1:30, Qamly wrote: > > On 10/11/05, Per Inge Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10/11/05, Christian Ohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Speaking of access rights, for SVN at least, that is given to people > > Now you speak as if you are leading the project.
Hmm.. > > > who can show they can do good patches, we can't just give SVN access > > to everyone who asks without knowing what they will do. > > But we can give access to people that have sent useful patches, and then > just trust them not to misuse their access. If you can't trust people to > do that, why even make them project members? Having access control is a > form of control for me (something I was accused of wanting to exert). Yes, I said if they have good patches, they should get access to svn. However, granting anyone access rights on trivial patches shouldn't be done IMO. I am in the side of prove to us that you can do a somewhat good job with the patches, then they should ask for access, and then the team member decide. > What's wrong with removing those who don't do anything? If they want to, > they can be readded easily. The only thing wrong is some people will take that the wrong way. > > Yes, we need more people to do action (ie code/test/gfx work) than > > Just to reiterate: That's what I think the current course won't bring, > and my proposed changes will. > And I hope you are wrong. _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@lists.berlios.de http://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/warzone-dev
