Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Second, we need to discuss here in Harmony the approach we want to
take with adopting the community of committers. We have many people
here that are not committers that have been working hard earning
commit status, so we need to be careful not to discourage anyone.
On the other hand, to me, when someone brings a large chunk of
software with the intention of continuing to work on it in a
community, that shows a reasonable amount of commitment, one of the
things we look for in committers. What we don't know are technical
competency of the people, and how they "fit" into the community, both
in working with others as well as "alignment of vision".
Possibilities :
1) Donate the code, submit patches, earn commit.
2) Donate the code, and some number of people come in with it with
commit granted to the "sableVM" part of the repository, and
interaction with the other parts of the codebase are done via patch
until earned. All existing committers have full access, but simple
manners would dictate we wouldn't go barging into code we don't
understand.
3) Donate the code, some # of people come in w/ full commit.
My personal preference is #2, #1, #3. While I don't like
balkanization of #2, but it has some balance to it - people don't just
get full commit by bringing some code, but still have to earn ot.
Yet, they continue to work on the code they know. I like #3 the
least, because we have others in the community working hard to earn
their full commit and it is something to be earned...
Comments all?
geir
Hi,
I think option #2 is more than reasonable. Yet, having a large number of
programmers (Harmony + SableVM) involved in the development of JC is a
promising step.
As far as I am concerned, it will take time to study the SableVM code
and its build system before being productive, but that's not a problem.
Enrico
