Two reasons. 1) Oversight. So it's much more obvious when a project is inactive and low on committers.
2) Tidyness. I hate the thought of the long committer lists just growing longer and more inaccurate. I'm looking for a way to represent the active community of a subproject, and while there might be active individuals who just deal with answers on the mailing list etc, largely the svn commit lists are the best way to record this. Hen On 12/2/05, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with the 1 year mark. I know that there are projects that I > haven't worked on for six months until the itch came back and I had > to scratch it! Is there any reason to remove committers? > Performance? Security? It seems to raise a barrier to reentry for > dormant committers. > > Eric > > On Dec 2, 2005, at 1:58 AM, Mario Ivankovits wrote: > > > Henri Yandell wrote: > >> I'd like to go ahead and remove all the committers from subversion > >> for > >> commons, and then add back anyone who has committed in the last 6 > >> months. > >> > > 1 year - and if possible take the user/dev mailinglist for this > > project into account. > > A commiter active in the mailinglist is also a valuable part of a > > project and for the community. > > > > --- > > Mario > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
