On 30.01.2008, at 10:35, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 15:24, Mark Slee wrote:
What we'd really
like to set up here is a system where there are different people with
committer priveleges to different parts of the project.
Hmmm... I would oppose this for two reasons;
1. Creating boundaries within a project, yet collaborate on the
PMC level
seems odd to me. Either people are entrusted within the project
(committer
rights) or they are not (no committer rights). If you think that a
Thrift
Java programmer will mess up the Ruby Thrift code, then you have
bigger
problems to deal with, IMHO.
2. Some people will eventually become fluent in more than one of
these. Are
you now going to start a VOTE on granting access to such member to
another
part of the project? Who is to decide that? The people involved in
that
language only or the whole PMC (ignoring for a fact that ASF has
rules for
this)? I can't see it work in practice.
We already have something like this in place for other projects; e.g.
in HTTPD we sometimes give only access to the docs or specific module
sub-trees instead of the whole codebase and the same is done with log4
(j|net|php|cxx) and lucene-(java|net|c)...
I agree that it's not the optimal way to do things and that trust
should be enough to manage it, but OTOH I don't see it as a real
obstacle which would warrant a -1 for incubation. Partioning _can_
make sense and might prove useful if the committership is growing
quickly...
In the end they are here to learn The A Way and if it turns out to be
a problem then they won't be able to graduate so I think it's
premature to turn down the proposal just because of this.
Cheers,
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
