On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Chris White wrote: > > Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice > > tidy > > [Summary] thread. > > > > There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than > > some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and > > even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother. > > Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges > at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers > for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them > commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is > supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP > goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the > arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. >
Maybe the email address is not such an issue, but it does seem fair to people taking time and commitment as a 'kind' of reward .. after of course the probation period. Sort of off the topic, but wanted to clarify. Why I did though say that read-only access to CVS do make sense for AT testers, is that while they will not be actually fixing bugs (OK, so they can make patches, etc), they will though need to test stuff, and especially if its an important or urgent fix, not needing to wait for the rsync mirrors will be a plus for them. -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
