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
community.
<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
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
