Re: Invitation for public discussion about the future of X

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:48:21PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > 	- Extend CVS access to regular contributors.  Use scripts or 
> > 	whatever to control access to subtrees if you want.
> 
> This comes up from time to time, and I'm sure will get discussed even more.
> I know there have been offers to others for CVS commit access, and some
> have refused and some have accepted. The consensus of who gets commit
> access has always been - if they show competance at sending patches in,
> then after a period of time, no doubt they'll get it. It's the same as
> the DRI, but with more of a prolonged period of evaluating that persons
> patches. I guess this 'prolonged' period, is the stickling point for most.
 
Why not simply have a second CVS repository, where most development
would take place under, while the current repository would be the one
used for (pre-/post-) releases with coarse-grain commits. Like stable
and development branches, but with the branches being on different
repositories.

This could give an effective answer to people desires:
 - CVS write access of the 2nd repository could be given to more people,
   with less 
 - The core developers would retain full control over the releases
 - Patches could be commited faster and could be tested more
   effectively. Less burden on the core developers as patch would
   already been tested by a regular developer and verified by users
   until a decision to include on the 1st repository has to be made.
 - Nightly builds of the 2nd repository could be made available so that
   users could test the lastest fixes and/or new features. 

It seems a more scalable and open development model without damage for
the existing rights. At least it would be a step forward from the
current deteriorating situation.

José Fonseca