Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On May 30, David Kowis [dkowis AT shlrm.org] wrote:
> Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> >> I'm just going to note that when we have a distributed repository, it'll
> >> be really easy to let people futz around with the code and submit
> >> patches. Accounts will only need to be granted when we determine their
> >> coding skillz to be l33t enough to have unsupervised commit access (re:
> >> the apprentice program)
> > 
> > Yes, a distributed scm would make it easier to do various things, but at
> > the same time we should make sure we don't make it any harder to get
> > regular commit access just because it's easier to get lesser access.  Our
> > low bar to getting commit access is a feature.  And for the fixes that are
> > at issue in this thread we'd want them to have direct access anyway,
> > requiring someone to review and pull quickfix stuff takes about as long as
> > just doing the change themselves.
> > 
> 
> I don't mean to be pedantic, but I still think "quickfix" stuff should
> be reviewed. I ran in to a spell marked quickfix which needed a bit more
> than just a simple "depends openssl." from initial glance, yeah that's
> what it needed, but it turns out that the optional depends would work if
> --disable-ssl was specified.
> 
> http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11289

Of course, everything should get reviewed, but that can happen on the
commits ML as well as anywhere, it doesn't need to happen pre-commit (more
than it does now).

> On the other note, I didn't want to imply that we should make it harder
> to grant commit access at all. I thought that's how we were doing it
> anyway. Let you drop some patches in for a bit, when we like your work
> (after explaining things to you as you do stuff) we grant you commit access.

Yes.

Attachment: pgptFzy6IOfl4.pgp
Description: PGP signature