On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> ICLAs are still an absolute requirement. So, imagine an Apache project with
> a policy like:
>
>Commit rights are granted on request to people with an Apache ICLA on
> file ...
>
OK. I understand. And I hope we think of "commit right
Projects shouldn't balk at
polite suggestions to modernize, even if we always
allow themselves the option of declining to participate.
>
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz
>To: dev@community.apache.org
>Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:43 AM
>Subject:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> ...There's a weaker form of this idea that looks at two populations of
> potential contributors: the members of the Apache Software Foundation
> (members@) and all of the people who have been granted commit rights on all
> of the projects (
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:31:44AM -, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jed Smith [mailto:j...@jedsmith.org]
> > Sent: 10 January 2013 21:27
> > Subject: Re: Project Culture and Commit Rights
>
> ...
>
> > The tool isn&#x
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Smith [mailto:j...@jedsmith.org]
> Sent: 10 January 2013 21:27
> Subject: Re: Project Culture and Commit Rights
...
> The tool isn't the issue here, and I disagree with any attempt to reframe it
> that way.
+1
Ross
There is nothing wrong with Subversion except for preference and
difficulty in making branches. I disagree that Benson's topic is
directly influenced by such a lower-rung choice as a version control
system. The same discussion would be necessary if Apache were
completely on Git; who can push direct
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
> Benson Margulies:
>> Anyone can read http://www.apache.org/dev/open-access-svn.html to see a
>> summary of the central idea that started this discussion: that the default
>> authorization scheme for Subversion at Apache should be to grant techn
Benson Margulies:
> Anyone can read http://www.apache.org/dev/open-access-svn.html to see a
> summary of the central idea that started this discussion: that the default
> authorization scheme for Subversion at Apache should be to grant technical
> permission to commit to all committers across the F
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM, janI wrote:
> On 5 January 2013 19:14, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> Mature, popular projects tend to receive more contributions than they can
>> handle; competent review becomes the scarce resource. I question whether
>> an RTC project would really spend a lot of ti
On 5 January 2013 19:14, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
> > It seems that the people who show up at these projects are, almost
> > universally, responsible adults who are happy to comply.
>
> The ASF is always going to require an iCLA before gr
I personally like the idea of giving committer right on request. I do not
like the fact that is has to be earned...we are volunteers not workers !
However I fully understand PMCs that are concerned about uncontrolled
commits, so I see the "right on request" go hand in hand with a way of
"removing
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> It seems that the people who show up at these projects are, almost
> universally, responsible adults who are happy to comply.
The ASF is always going to require an iCLA before granting commit rights.
That on its own poses a significant bar
ICLAs are still an absolute requirement. So, imagine an Apache project with
a policy like:
Commit rights are granted on request to people with an Apache ICLA on
file ...
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>
> .
> .
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
.
.
.
>
> The question at hand here is, 'is this really a good idea? Would project
> grow and thrive better if they set a lower bar to grant commit rights?'
>
How does the iCLA fit into any change? Personally I would not mind
commit right
14 matches
Mail list logo
