community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Veto! Veto?
Date Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:41:41 GMT
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Here's a better not-quite-so-hypothetical example.   A project like
> MyFaces
> > has to pass the TCK testing suite provided by Oracle.   We would not want
> > to allow unrestricted commit access by someone who did not
> > understand profoundly and intuitively that the JSF API portion of the
> > project has a predefined public API which cannot be changed.
>
>
> Some projects feel this way.  Others have found that review is just as
> effective as restricting commit bits tightly.  The classic case is
> Subversion which has a very high profile (and thus is obliged to have
> stable API's).  That PMC offers a commit bit to anyone who asks.
>
> People seem to forget that erroneous commits that pass review can simply be
> reverted.  That is one of the points of using version control.
>

Yes, either approach could be used.  Myfaces doesn't filter candidates
based on this criteria -- we train contributers when they submit their
first patches to the API project -- but a TCK project might decide to do
so.   The message probably should have read "They might not want to allow"
rather than "We would not want to allow " as it gave the wrong impression.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message