Mailing-List: contact bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gary.martin@wandisco.com
 designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <50ED779E.9050105@wandisco.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:58:54 +0000
From: Gary Martin <gary.martin@wandisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Relaxing access control to the Bloodhound source
References: <50EB38BA.5070408@wandisco.com>
 <DC0A01AB-7965-4546-AC80-B53D1E546C76@wandisco.com>
 <CAJSKAsgoJoGXiZKgWh9EP-koM5v4vxherfVK8ichaA+Vo1ZPOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABD8fLW8rqM_y=OLfHacJRZCh2PCBywWWRsHR3vT_iwFtsMY5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABD8fLW8rqM_y=OLfHacJRZCh2PCBywWWRsHR3vT_iwFtsMY5g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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
>>>>