Re: Re: [Dri-devel] Re: Invitation for public discussion about the future of X

> [Original Message]
> From: José Fonseca <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Cc: dri-devel <[email protected]>
> Date: 3/21/2003 9:49:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [forum] Re: [Dri-devel] Re: Invitation for public discussion
about the future of X
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:07:04AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Don, 2003-03-20 at 22:53, José Fonseca wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Why a second repository then, instead of just branches, and maybe
> > restricting most developers to commit to branches and only allow some
> > to commit to the trunk, for example? I don't see much advantage in a
> > separate repository (but I may simply be missing it, clues appreciated
> > :), but it makes merges more difficult.
>
> A cleaner seperation I guess. According to
> http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg00846.html , using
> access control in CVS is not an option. The model described by
> http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg00853.html is that
> every developer should have his own repository and submit a patch to
> [email protected]. 
>
> My proposal is, instead of every developer/sub-project maintaining it
> own repository outside xfree86.org, host these repositories as branches
> on single (but seperate) repository under the Xfree86.org umbrella.

But the problem comes in if your work isn't taken because of conflicts. 
That 
will lead you back to where you are now.  More yelling and more shouting
and no code.

Georgina 


>
> It would be less likely to forks and spin-offs originate, where as in
> the current situation they seem to proliferate. And I don't see in what
> way would things more difficult as they already are.
>
> José Fonseca
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Tablet PC.  
> Does your code think in ink? You could win a Tablet PC. 
> Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing. What are you waiting for? 
> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en
> _______________________________________________
> Dri-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel