On 12/08/2010 11:23 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Andrew, Hi. > 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. It's been identified as a bottleneck for the Linux kernel. However, that's the way they like it. >> 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. I'm happy to commit simple one-liners. However, as soon as people do more than that they need copyright assignment, and once they've done that they have commit access. > In any case, even if everyone did have commit access, CVS is still > painful for *local* development. Not for me. I mean, it's not great, but it's hardly a big factor in the time it takes to develop code. Andrew.
