I think Pier's conerns are quite reasonable. Let me bring up a few points that I think are central to the debate:
A. Security. This is the most important concern in allowing new commiters. If they purposely or accidently introduce security issues, this tarnishes the Tomcat name. Code review is the most important way of preventing this. How much does asking someone else to commit the code for you force them to look over it for bugs of this kind? How much would other people look over CVS submissions that were done directly by a new commiter? The ratio between these numbers is critical. If it is 1, then there is no harm in giving commit access easily. B. Introducing bugs. This is a concern much like A., but because the SSI code had glaring bugs to begin with, I don't think it is much of an issue in my case. If a new contributor has commit access, it makes it easier for her to fix any bugs they introduce, and presumably they would because of the pride-factor. C. Commiter may not stay long. In my case, I explicitly said that I didn't want to be a commiter originally. I didn't want to spend lots of time on this project. As things turned out, my 3 hour change turned into a 3 day change, and it has become obvious to me that a few more commits will probably be necessary. I asked for commit access because 1) I want to take the load of others and 2) The latency of waiting for others to review/commit the code is fairly high. Nevertheless, I'll say this explicitly: I don't want to become a 'major' contributor to Tomcat. Act accoringly. D.Scope. Must a commiter have scope to the entire project? Can't the access file be changed only in the o.a.c.ssi directory and the servlet directory? Would this address any concerns? Thanks, Dan Pier Fumagalli wrote: >"jean-frederic clere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Remy Maucherat wrote: >> >> >>>>In the middle it's good, extremes (I believe) not... And since this is the >>>>second time in less than a week (Denis posted 14 times, the first time on >>>>4/27 if I'm not wrong and Dan 7 times, the first time on 5/1), and it's >>>>starting to be a little bit "extreme" and it doesn't make me feel very >>>>comfortable... >>>> >>>> >>>You have to consider the importance and quality of the patch. In Denis' >>>case, that's why I nominated him. >>> >>>I have yet to see trouble caused by a guy who was granted commit access, and >>>the idea is to encourage people to contribute more. >>> >>> >>Probably the status of Developer as described in the >>http://jakarta.apache.org/site/roles.html is not used correctly. >> >>For me, if someone that brings one good patch reaches the developer rank, not >>yet the committer rank (Or are the committers too lazy to commit contributions >>from the developers?). >> >> > >>From the same document you mentioned... "Committers: Developers who give >frequent and valuable contributions to a subproject of the Project can have >their status promoted to that of a "Committer" for that subproject." > >Ok, we all agree that Denis gave a valuable contribution, but as far as I >can see, can we say that this is "frequent"? I honestly can't... And again, >I have _nothing_ against Dan or Dennis, actually, I would like to thank them >for their patches... > > Pier > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
