[forum] Re: Invitation for public discussion about the future of X

[Michel Dänzer]

On Fre, 2003-03-21 at 00:28, José Fonseca wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:07:04AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Don, 2003-03-20 at 22:53, José Fonseca wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:48:21PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > > > 	- Extend CVS access to regular contributors.  Use
> > > > > 	scripts or whatever to control access to subtrees if you
> > > > > 	want.
> > > > 
> > > > This comes up from time to time, and I'm sure will get discussed
> > > > even more.  I know there have been offers to others for CVS commit
> > > > access, and some have refused and some have accepted. The
> > > > consensus of who gets commit access has always been - if they show
> > > > competance at sending patches in, then after a period of time, no
> > > > doubt they'll get it. It's the same as the DRI, but with more of a
> > > > prolonged period of evaluating that persons patches. I guess this
> > > > 'prolonged' period, is the stickling point for most.
> > >  
> > > Why not simply have a second CVS repository, where most development
> > > would take place under, while the current repository would be the
> > > one used for (pre-/post-) releases with coarse-grain commits. Like
> > > stable and development branches, but with the branches being on
> > > different repositories.
> > 
> > Why a second repository then, instead of just branches, and maybe
> > restricting most developers to commit to branches and only allow some
> > to commit to the trunk, for example? I don't see much advantage in a
> > separate repository (but I may simply be missing it, clues appreciated
> > :), but it makes merges more difficult.
> 
> A cleaner seperation I guess. According to
> http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg00846.html , using
> access control in CVS is not an option.

I don't think that's strictly needed: break the rules intentionally (!)
and kiss write access good bye. :)

> The model described by http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg00853.html 
> is that every developer should have his own repository and submit a patch to
> fixes@xfree96.org. 

Actually, I wouldn't call this several repositories but replicating a
single repository. Seems a middle way to me.

> My proposal is, instead of every developer/sub-project maintaining it
> own repository outside xfree86.org, host these repositories as branches
> on single (but seperate) repository under the Xfree86.org umbrella.

And how would moving stuff between these repositories be easier than
between the existing separate repositories?

> It would be less likely to forks and spin-offs originate, where as in
> the current situation they seem to proliferate. And I don't see in what
> way would things more difficult as they already are.

Sure, because they are separate repositories now.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast