From bloodhound-dev-return-1530-apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Jan 8 11:21:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6FEBDC85 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:21:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 86889 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2013 11:21:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 86838 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2013 11:21:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 86823 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jan 2013 11:21:22 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:21:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.177 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.177] (HELO mail-qc0-f177.google.com) (209.85.216.177) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:21:18 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u28so361492qcs.22 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:20:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=NRcL9yf0eUFqVMHoDoeCM2axQ3koauNIk4vviZ6qLhE=; b=TbxDgW1wMQEhenhcxhuH/+QkfdsHz253tqOwD2mwBw3DDV7f8h+dM2KPJVtgcuevql cqXW+ePdFYKqNzV0rZNXGoTIE6pEEs0NaZ5eVFk6K7pdAL/EKbH3OheTqULt61BnfBqu duU+4lbLP+2jTAof1PMaBPZ6Uy/3tpVE9O15UtT+xUxL5ctV/yVuBRlMIYLGi3DQc8A4 AOlRz/hkjZ8mtBHOEwwJlwmD/zUJ/7OYLml4t3OqmhLC1xA6HJGad6YzpliUycDAxTHY zfwf1gUKZbbK8iXkY/TanR/A2kJxQKsuDM9n2UhcQMapNq4gVbP042HrAT2HbIrkUDlR b/2w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.195.138 with SMTP id ec10mr46030545qab.3.1357644057158; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:20:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.127.229 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 03:20:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.127.229 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 03:20:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <50EB38BA.5070408@wandisco.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 06:20:55 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Relaxing access control to the Bloodhound source From: Greg Stein To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fabd5c2246704d2c523c9 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --20cf300fabd5c2246704d2c523c9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We made the change just a week or so ago, so yeah: no metrics yet. Branko put it well: why not remove technical barriers. If an Allura dev shows up with a patch/tweak, and we say "ooh. nice", then our devs merely say +1 and the contributor commits. No ACL or LDAP changes. No patch downloaded/applied. Just an email saying "thanks". This is version control. Anything can be rolled back. I like to turn the question around: why *should* we erect technical barriers? (yes, we still have social barriers, and expect people to engage) (obviously: +1 to the OP) Cheers, -g On Jan 8, 2013 4:28 AM, "Peter Ko=C5=BEelj" wrote: > I guess the SVN's change probably isn't long enough to have any feedback = on > how well that works, > but I do agree that this is an option worth trying. I guess we > can always switch back if it does not work. > > Peter > > > On 7 January 2013 22:58, Joe Dreimann > wrote: > > > I see a far bigger risk of not receiving contributions than of receivin= g > > poor quality / malicious contributions at this point. If this is a prov= en > > approach for svn, I have no objection to the change. > > > > - Joe > > > > ________________________ > > @jdreimann - Twitter > > Sent from my phone > > > > On 7 Jan 2013, at 21:06, Branko =C4=8Cibej wrote: > > > > > There was recently a long debate on the (private) members@ list about > > > lowering technical barriers for commit access. As a result, the > > > Subversion project has already changed its access control settings so > > > that any ASF committer can make changes to the Subversion source code= . > > > > > > I propose that Bloodhound does the same. > > > > > > I have to point out that making this change would /not/ mean that > > > everyone has license to fiddle with the Bloodhound source code withou= t > > > prior consent from the BH dev community. Project member status must > > > still be earned, but the proposed change means that contributions fro= m > > > ASF committers would use up a lot less of the BH developers' time. > > > > > > The proponents of this change are hoping that eventually, most of the > > > ASF projects will move to a more relaxed access control model. > > > Bloodhound, having a relatively small and homogeneous community, woul= d > > > likely profit by lowering the bar for new contributors. > > > > > > -- Brane > > > > > > -- > > > Branko =C4=8Cibej > > > Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com > > > > > > --20cf300fabd5c2246704d2c523c9--