incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <gary.mar...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: Relaxing access control to the Bloodhound source
Date Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:30:34 GMT
Excellent. With only positive comments so far I suspect we have captured 
the will of the community.

Given that this is more worthwhile if all this eventually results in 
people getting involved, I am wondering where would be the most 
appropriate places to announce the change.

Thanks!
     Gary

On 09/01/13 14:19, Greg Stein wrote:
> We control commit to our project, so... Yes. We're good. When I get to my
> laptop, or Branko beats me to it, we'll be set.
> On Jan 9, 2013 7:59 AM, "Gary Martin" <gary.martin@wandisco.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems that everyone who is for this has made a very good case. I took a
>> bit of time to play devil's advocate to see if I could find good enough
>> objections for our usage but I think everything is covered.
>>
>> Just to check.. is this is a decision we can make independently of the
>> IPMC?
>>
>> Anyway +1 to the suggestion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>      Gary
>>
>> On 08/01/13 11:20, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> We made the change just a week or so ago, so yeah: no metrics yet.
>>>
>>> Branko put it well: why not remove technical barriers. If an Allura dev
>>> shows up with a patch/tweak, and we say "ooh. nice", then our devs merely
>>> say +1 and the contributor commits. No ACL or LDAP changes. No patch
>>> downloaded/applied. Just an email saying "thanks".
>>>
>>> This is version control. Anything can be rolled back. I like to turn the
>>> question around: why *should* we erect technical barriers? (yes, we still
>>> have social barriers, and expect people to engage)
>>>
>>> (obviously: +1 to the OP)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -g
>>> On Jan 8, 2013 4:28 AM, "Peter Koželj" <peter@digiverse.si> wrote:
>>>
>>>   I guess the SVN's change probably isn't long enough to have any feedback
>>>> on
>>>> how well that works,
>>>> but I do agree that this is an option worth trying. I guess we
>>>> can always switch back if it does not work.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7 January 2013 22:58, Joe Dreimann <joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com**>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   I see a far bigger risk of not receiving contributions than of receiving
>>>>> poor quality / malicious contributions at this point. If this is a
>>>>> proven
>>>>> approach for svn, I have no objection to the change.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________
>>>>> @jdreimann - Twitter
>>>>> Sent from my phone
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7 Jan 2013, at 21:06, Branko Čibej <brane@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   There was recently a long debate on the (private) members@ list about
>>>>>> lowering technical barriers for commit access. As a result, the
>>>>>> Subversion project has already changed its access control settings
so
>>>>>> that any ASF committer can make changes to the Subversion source
code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that Bloodhound does the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to point out that making this change would /not/ mean that
>>>>>> everyone has license to fiddle with the Bloodhound source code without
>>>>>> prior consent from the BH dev community. Project member status must
>>>>>> still be earned, but the proposed change means that contributions
from
>>>>>> ASF committers would use up a lot less of the BH developers' time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proponents of this change are hoping that eventually, most of
the
>>>>>> ASF projects will move to a more relaxed access control model.
>>>>>> Bloodhound, having a relatively small and homogeneous community,
would
>>>>>> likely profit by lowering the bar for new contributors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Brane
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Branko Čibej
>>>>>> Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>


Mime
View raw message