I guess the SVN's change probably isn't long enough to have any feedback on how well that works, but I do agree that this is an option worth trying. I guess we can always switch back if it does not work.
Peter On 7 January 2013 22:58, Joe Dreimann <[email protected]> wrote: > I see a far bigger risk of not receiving contributions than of receiving > poor quality / malicious contributions at this point. If this is a proven > approach for svn, I have no objection to the change. > > - Joe > > ________________________ > @jdreimann - Twitter > Sent from my phone > > On 7 Jan 2013, at 21:06, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There was recently a long debate on the (private) members@ list about > > lowering technical barriers for commit access. As a result, the > > Subversion project has already changed its access control settings so > > that any ASF committer can make changes to the Subversion source code. > > > > I propose that Bloodhound does the same. > > > > I have to point out that making this change would /not/ mean that > > everyone has license to fiddle with the Bloodhound source code without > > prior consent from the BH dev community. Project member status must > > still be earned, but the proposed change means that contributions from > > ASF committers would use up a lot less of the BH developers' time. > > > > The proponents of this change are hoping that eventually, most of the > > ASF projects will move to a more relaxed access control model. > > Bloodhound, having a relatively small and homogeneous community, would > > likely profit by lowering the bar for new contributors. > > > > -- Brane > > > > -- > > Branko Čibej > > Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com > > >
