www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Menard <nirvd...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Writable git repositories
Date Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:30:46 GMT
Hi William,

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 5:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> Here is the problem;
> The foundation has always been responsible for the contents of the foundation's
> revision control systems, and assumes that responsibility upon a commit.  The
> notices of each of these commits are broadcast to the relevant projects, who
> are responsible for catching any irregularities and repairing them.

I think all modern SCMs have some means of doing a post
commit/checkin/push hook which can be used to send an email to the
relevant commits list.

> The is substantially different from individual development forks over which
> nobody has an oversight role.  E.g. my git tree is not your git tree, and if
> the git forks all exist at the foundation, the foundation suddenly grows a huge
> liability without a sufficient oversight process.

I'm not sure I follow you on this one.  My filesystem is also not your
filesystem, so you don't see any of my code modifications until I
commit them to the SVN server.  git doesn't change that.  I'd still
strongly advocate for open development of software and I think
projects will largely do the right thing there.  So, I would expect to
see regular pushes of local developer repositories to remote branches.
 If they don't, that's not a failing of the tool, that's a failing of
the process.

As for non-committers, I think it's non-issue.  They can have a local
repository and host elsewhere -- that wouldn't be the ASF
responsibility.  And all contributions to a project should be held to
the same standard as the current JIRA-based patch submission.

> So not to badmouth git, but infra is responsible for ensuring that the technical
> aspects of the foundation (infra managed, or not) satisfy the legal/procedural
> responsibilities for this foundation to remain a 501(c)3 and mitigate the risks
> appropriately.

If this really is the problem, I'm interested in hearing a bit more
about how git is a problem.   From my (possibly naive) standpoint,
there's no difference between git, SVN, or any other SCM for that
matter on this point.


View raw message