incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Abele <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Thrift
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:30:41 GMT
On 30.01.2008, at 10:35, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 15:24, Mark Slee wrote:
>> What we'd really
>> like to set up here is a system where there are different people with
>> committer priveleges to different parts of the project.
> Hmmm... I would oppose this for two reasons;
>  1. Creating boundaries within a project, yet collaborate on the  
> PMC level
> seems odd to me. Either people are entrusted within the project  
> (committer
> rights) or they are not (no committer rights). If you think that a  
> Thrift
> Java programmer will mess up the Ruby Thrift code, then you have  
> bigger
> problems to deal with, IMHO.
>  2. Some people will eventually become fluent in more than one of  
> these. Are
> you now going to start a VOTE on granting access to such member to  
> another
> part of the project? Who is to decide that? The people involved in  
> that
> language only or the whole PMC (ignoring for a fact that ASF has  
> rules for
> this)? I can't see it work in practice.

We already have something like this in place for other projects; e.g.  
in HTTPD we sometimes give only access to the docs or specific module  
sub-trees instead of the whole codebase and the same is done with log4 
(j|net|php|cxx) and lucene-(java|net|c)...

I agree that it's not the optimal way to do things and that trust  
should be enough to manage it, but OTOH I don't see it as a real  
obstacle which would warrant a -1 for incubation. Partioning _can_  
make sense and might prove useful if the committership is growing  

In the end they are here to learn The A Way and if it turns out to be  
a problem then they won't be able to graduate so I think it's  
premature to turn down the proposal just because of this.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message