Ted Husted wrote: > > I think the real issue here is off-list discussions.
Third is, yes. The other two thirds... > So long as the commit is above-board, properly documentation in the > Subversion log, and backed by a ICLA when applicable, I don't see what > difference posting it to JIRA first makes. We are talking about someone committing on behalf of another person. So... how do we make educated committers if we don't let them commit their own code, and avoid roles like 'code managers' to supervise others commits? Once you are trusted to commit your code yourself, please do. The Jira/Bugzilla/dev list point is to say HEY - you want to offer us code, then offer it! No backchannels. That's the third third. If they aren't a committer yet, they post a patch (jira or list) just like every other wannabe future committer. When the volume and quality are reasonable, they are offered commit access. But the suggested policy is to state "no backchannel dealings with codesubmissions. bring it to the list." Otherwise we'll fail to recognize the merits of *individual's* contributions and therefore won't offer commit access when it's warrented. And *that* is the third part of the issue. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
