Proposal: KDE CVS Commit Policy

[Dirk Mueller]

On Mon, 31 M=E4r 2003, Neil Stevens wrote:

> The desires of certain vendors to have binary packages possibly leading t=
o=20
> undiscussed and even undisclosed delays in KDE releases.

vendors desire to provide binary packages?

Wow, can you please tell me more about those vendors? I'd really like to ta=
lk to=20
them. Will they provide binary packages for any platform? I think thats=20
great news!

> The desires of certain vendors to have advance notice of security problem=
s=20
> possibly leading to covered-up bugs.

Ah.. makes sense. Not to me, though.=20

> The desires of certain vendors to have KDE make certain use of certain=20
> libraries possibly leading to breakages of compatibility.

example?=20

> > Also, why do your 2 points belong into a CVS commit policy ?
> It doesn't, any more than your point on "direction" does.  That point I=
=20
> read as you saying developers should *take* more direction, and this was=
=20
> my rebuttal of that.

Oh well, the "direction" point does belong in a CVS policy IMHO. you can ge=
t=20
free CVS hosting almost anywhere, nobody forces you to use KDE CVS. But if=
=20
you want to, you have to play according to the rules. Very simple actually.=
=20


--=20
Dirk