incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <>
Subject Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:03:12 GMT
Hi Daniel,

On Aug 17, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:

> Craig L Russell wrote on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:42:18 -0700:
>> One of the first things you learn in Apache is that there are (at  
>> least)
>> three levels of involvement that community members can take:
>> contributor, committer, PMC member. See "how it works, roles, etc.  
>> etc."
>> on the Apache site.
>> Now the subversion project comes in where these are not the commonly
>> used terms. Instead, the terms for committer and PMC member are  
>> partial
>> committer and full committer. That's fine for the established  
>> community,
>> but the translation from committer -> partial committer and PMC  
>> member ->
>> full committer needs to be done within the project, not within  
>> Apache.
> Subversion doesn't have a concept of "has CTR commit access to the
> entire tree, but is not a PMC member".  (That would be something  
> between
> partial committer and full committer.)  So, IIUC, it's more than
> terminology difference; it's a semantic difference.
> (In Subversion, adding to the PMC and granting tree-wide CTR commit
> access have always been done simultaneously.)

And I don't want to get involved in understanding the CRT, RTC, full,  
partial, and other semantic differences in your project. Many projects  
use various terms and practices to describe how they govern their  
projects. Other projects have sandboxes, site committers, wiki  
"committers", etc. and the subtleties are not really important to  
raise to the board. I think that if you report to the board that  
you've granted commit access to someone, that's a fact and additional  
color is not necessary.
>> When I saw this month's board report for Subversion, I was taken  
>> aback
>> that the board is expected to follow the terminology used by only one
>> project. Really? The board, which has used the same terms for 10++
>> years, is now going to hear reports of full committers and partial
>> committers? What do we do when another project comes in and uses yet
>> different terms for the same concept? Do we now make a translation
>> manual for everyone in Apache to use?
> Subversion *has* used these terms for a few years too.  Should we just
> stop using the terms we've used for N years?

I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you  
use Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache  
> <if 0>pun about svn folks being unable to forget their history</if>
>> My $.02: if you want to talk about full and partial committers in the
>> Apache community, there's more work to do so everyone gets on board  
>> with
>> your terminology. Otherwise, communications will be enhanced if you  
>> keep
>> full and partial committers to yourselves and translate to the  
>> commonly
>> used Apache terms when dealing with the Apache community.
>> And yes, I'd like to see the Subversion board report amended to  
>> remove
>> references to full and partial.
> Did you read the report?

Why, yes, I did read the report. I figured I would before commenting  
on the report.
> In particular: lines 1710,1711,1717 of r24487 of the board agenda.

Yes. I'd prefer to keep translations out of the discussion with the  
wider Apache community. If translation is needed (someone in the  
subversion community wants to understand the board report) then that's  
a matter for the subversion community not the wider Apache community.

>> Craig
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Oracle
>> 408 276-5638
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
408 276-5638
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

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

View raw message