incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Relaxing access control to the Bloodhound source
Date Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:19:53 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message