Hi Andrew,
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/08/2010 10:56 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Anyway, I don't mind that as long as someone else does it. (Clearly,
>>> the issue of developers without commit access is a red herring, as
>>> every developer should have commit access.)
>>
>> But it's not a red herring! I don't expect to have commit rights to
>> GNU Classpath. I'm more than happy to send patches to the list and
>> have someone else merge them (that's in fact a model I personally
>> prefer).
>
> This model does not scale. Also, it is unreliable: no-one should
> commit a patch they haven't tested themselves. It leads to extra
> work. It's also bad because it leads to two classes of developers,
> those with and those without commit access.
Well, you know, it works just fine for the Linux kernel so as a
general statement, that's just not true.
> Every developer should commit their own patches.
I didn't mean to start an argument on what kind of development model
GNU Classpath should be using. But I don't quite agree with the above
statement because waiting for commit access creates a barrier for
people who just want to submit simple one-liners. In any case, even if
everyone did have commit access, CVS is still painful for *local*
development.
Pekka
