On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's a better not-quite-so-hypothetical example. A project like > MyFaces > > has to pass the TCK testing suite provided by Oracle. We would not want > > to allow unrestricted commit access by someone who did not > > understand profoundly and intuitively that the JSF API portion of the > > project has a predefined public API which cannot be changed. > > > Some projects feel this way. Others have found that review is just as > effective as restricting commit bits tightly. The classic case is > Subversion which has a very high profile (and thus is obliged to have > stable API's). That PMC offers a commit bit to anyone who asks. > > People seem to forget that erroneous commits that pass review can simply be > reverted. That is one of the points of using version control. > Yes, either approach could be used. Myfaces doesn't filter candidates based on this criteria -- we train contributers when they submit their first patches to the API project -- but a TCK project might decide to do so. The message probably should have read "They might not want to allow" rather than "We would not want to allow " as it gave the wrong impression.
