On 7/7/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this will have an extremely debilitating and discouraging effect on everyone involved: no one can commit their own code.
Yes, it doesn't sound very entertaining. I'll have to think about it again.
"No code ownership" is fine, but IMO everyone likes to commit their own work and say to themselves "I did it".
You're right again. What I meant was to ensure that a commit won't break others' daily work only because not everything's been committed. It's not that rarely when we couldn't build Geronimo from a fresh checkout. The other effect is that it makes the change known to more than a very few people which increases changes to fix it in case of troubles.
I think it will also tend to give the PMC members even more work to do, which they already don't have time for, and is likely to widen the divide between committers and PMC members. It will also be IMO rather confusing: despite review by 3 PMC members I expect the changes will still be best understood by their author, and if the author is NEVER the committer, it will be nearly impossible to find out who was responsible.
That's what I thought we want to avoid, i.e. that a change is best understood by its author. That's what makes that some areas are not handled very well and only when Dave J. is involved a fix might be prepared. Re more work for PMCers, it's not quite true - we've already got more work than it's necessary before RTC and only PMCers' votes are binding so we have to do it anyway. When one claims a change has been tested and +1'ed eventually, it means that the process of applying the change has already been done so the additional step would be to execute 'svn ci'. What additional work are we talking about - svn ci? Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
