incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <>
Subject Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:43:01 GMT
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.)

> 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?

<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?

In particular: lines 1710,1711,1717 of r24487 of the board agenda.

> Craig
> 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