I think for social and community reasons requiring the same process for doc changes as we do for code contributions is a huge barrier to documentation contributions.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > Oh, technically we could. The issue here is social and organisational. > > On 6 Mar 2010, at 23:35, Paul Davis wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 6 Mar 2010, at 16:48, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>> >>>>> That cannot happen. The official site is kept in ASF Subversion. >>>> >>>> This is orthogonal to the rest of the proposal. >>> >>> No it's not. >>> >>> The main site has to be from Subversion, and any additions or merges to >>> Subversion have to be provided by someone who has signed a copyright >>> agreement, or checked the box in JIRA, or otherwise indicated that they are >>> allowed to contribute the work, and are happy for it to be licensed the way >>> it will be licensed. >>> >>> >> >> Noah, >> >> Can you point me to the information concerning the main site being >> required to be served from SVN? The FAQ [1] for the Confluence wiki >> explicitly covers using a dump as a project's main site, so I can't >> fathom that we wouldn't be able to pull in a subdirectory from outside >> SVN. The restrictions covered in the FAQ are that we can't put user >> contributions into a release tarball or in SVN, but no one is >> suggesting that since it'd require all contributions to be covered by >> an ICLA or similar. >> >> AFAICT, this would be equivalent to us mirroring the coverage reports >> generated by buildbot. >> >> Paul >> >> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/ > >
