I'll make sure @apbloodhound mentions it on twitter once done.
On 9 January 2013 14:30, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > Excellent. With only positive comments so far I suspect we have captured > the will of the community. > > Given that this is more worthwhile if all this eventually results in > people getting involved, I am wondering where would be the most appropriate > places to announce the change. > > Thanks! > Gary > > > On 09/01/13 14:19, Greg Stein wrote: > >> We control commit to our project, so... Yes. We're good. When I get to my >> laptop, or Branko beats me to it, we'll be set. >> On Jan 9, 2013 7:59 AM, "Gary Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It seems that everyone who is for this has made a very good case. I took >>> a >>> bit of time to play devil's advocate to see if I could find good enough >>> objections for our usage but I think everything is covered. >>> >>> Just to check.. is this is a decision we can make independently of the >>> IPMC? >>> >>> Anyway +1 to the suggestion. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Gary >>> >>> On 08/01/13 11:20, Greg Stein wrote: >>> >>> We made the change just a week or so ago, so yeah: no metrics yet. >>>> >>>> Branko put it well: why not remove technical barriers. If an Allura dev >>>> shows up with a patch/tweak, and we say "ooh. nice", then our devs >>>> merely >>>> say +1 and the contributor commits. No ACL or LDAP changes. No patch >>>> downloaded/applied. Just an email saying "thanks". >>>> >>>> This is version control. Anything can be rolled back. I like to turn the >>>> question around: why *should* we erect technical barriers? (yes, we >>>> still >>>> have social barriers, and expect people to engage) >>>> >>>> (obviously: +1 to the OP) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -g >>>> On Jan 8, 2013 4:28 AM, "Peter Koželj" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > -- Joe Dreimann UX Designer | WANdisco <http://www.wandisco.com/> * * *Transform your software development department. Register for a free SVN HealthCheck <http://go.wandisco.com/HealthCheck-Sig.html> *
