groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?
Date Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:20:11 GMT
Le 29/09/15 15:33, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Cédric Champeau
> <> wrote:
>> ....One exit criteria is "growing the community", and growing
>> the community means finding new "committers", aka, people committed to the
>> project. And The definition here of committer binds it to having write
>> access to the repository, which has nothing to do with it IMHO....
> You are technically correct but giving those people commit access to
> the repository, as part of making them committers, doesn't hurt.
> It's useful for 99% for them and for the others it's not a problem -
> we trust them not to touch what they don't master (like any committer)
> and worst case version control is our friend.
> So having two different roles for "coding committers" and "non-coding
> committers" would complicate things while bringing no tangible
> benefit.
> Basically, if you think someone is committed to Groovy and deserves to
> be listed as such, make them committers, as there's no better role
> here and the coding or non-coding distinction is not useful.

As a matter of fact, at Directory, we voted in someone who never
contributed any code, but who spent a lot of his time educating people
on how to use the software, and more important, advertized the project.
We would call him an 'evangelist' at Sun /Oracle (except that
evangelists have been recently eradicated from Oracle ;-)

However, we had to grant him commit access to the code base, because
it's part of the process. But there is more than just code in our coe
base :
- documentation
- site
- scripts

and in this very case, he participated a lot of the site. So, yes, a
committer is much more than just someone who write code, and yes, it's
simpler to have one single commit flag for the project.

View raw message