On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz@loskot.net> wrote:
On 16/12/10 11:04, Bruce Adams wrote:
I really shouldn't get involved in this but... You need to move away from the idea of code ownership, especially in the context of a community project.
In spite of the fact you followed up my post, I assume you don't address the "You need to" directly to me but to the Community in general.
Either he meant "You" as in the Community, or "You" as in "Dean Michael Berris" (or in this case, me :D ).
In a way it is a nonsense to require permission of the maintainer.
[...]
All you've written sounds somewhat obvious to me, indeed.
Yeah, but what is the current process reflecting? Because the maintainer essentially has a say on: 1. What code goes in. 2. When the changes get to the release branch. 3. Who gets commit access to the repository and is able to make that person a co-maintainer. Really, it looks like every action a contributor would make would require the approval of the maintainer. Private branches might be a good option, but then I'm not sure what the policy is (or what the permission model in the current SVN set up is like) is on granting private branch privileges to people -- I'm also not sure if the infrastructure as it currently is makes this private branching sustainable for a wide number of contributors. So in the end, in the context of Boost, it seems the only "effective" way of being able to contribute more than just the occasional patches to a library through Trac is to be a co-maintainer of a library. Then you run into the issue of what happens when the maintainer doesn't like^H^H^H^H know you or doesn't have time to make you a co-maintainer of the library? I guess I'm looking at things wrong and if I am I would really be appreciative if someone can correct my interpretation of the situation. -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com