incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)
Date Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:30:49 GMT
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:06, Niclas Hedhman <> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>> The report is consumed by the svn community, too. They reviewed it and
>> provided feedback. It uses terms from the svn community.
> No way would the Board (nor you) allow arbitrary terminology across
> projects even if it is "parentheticals" (whatever that means). You

Here is a definition I found, and it matches my intent:

parenthetical: Set off within or as if within parentheses; qualifying
or explanatory

> would shoot such project down faster than they could type it out in
> the report.

Euh. Go read the reports some time. There are lots of PMC-specific
terms in those reports. We understand them from experience, context,
or putting a query back to the PMC. I doubt the Board really cares
about the terms, as long as they can understand the report.

> judgment when you are holding fast to this view that projects (at
> least Subversion!) can change the terminology in board reports because
> they are too lazy to change.

The Board report uses normal terminology, and supplements that with
svn terminology. Go read it; I posted it else-thread.

> why
> not spend a little effort on educating the Subversion community to go
> with the flow. How fking hard can that be??

As I said in my other post, by using *both* sets of terms in the
report, the svn community also learns what the "formal" names are here
at the ASF. They can see the translation.

So yeah. I'm doing exactly what you're asking: educating the community
on what a report looks like and what the proper terms should be.



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

View raw message