incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: Subversion vs other source control systems
Date Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:11:49 GMT
Santiago Gala wrote:
> I'd say that if a project wants to have a distributed scm and makes a
> reasonable case of the reasons, they would ask for it to infrastructure.
> If infrastructure denies it and the project does not accept the
> reasoning or how it is exposed, we have a conflict. If there is a
> conflict the Board *has* to consider the issue. I'm not sure on how it
> is worded in the bylines.

Well, yes, board is the appeal of last resort.  But just like the board
rarely touches the third rail of making development decisions for a project,
they rarely make architectural decisions overriding infrastructure.

The right way is for infra to determine they won't do it unless ___ happens,
and appeal to the board to make ___ happen on behalf of the requester.

> While we typically value consensus a lot, we typically don't take
> bureaucratic answers as absolutes. Or at least that is how I remember
> the ASF used to be. :P

You can't have a less absolute bureaucratic result than bringing an issue
to the board ;-)

> The typical workflow in distributed scm is that authoritative
> repositories pull (as requested and after review) from non-official
> ones, so typically security is easier: no longer lots of people with
> write access, but only a handful, taking changesets from the rest of the
> community.

But there's a deep question of if this goes against the principals of the
meritocracy of peers that has worked so well for the ASF.  We don't and
wouldn't entertain such roles as code wrangler, project lead, etc.  It's
just not our ethos/social schema.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message