[Kde-scm-interest] meeting summary

[Jeff Mitchell]

On 12/9/2009 6:36 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:14:17AM +0100, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
>> Once all of KDE is on gitorious it will be extremely hard to maintain
>> the policy of only having these $-developer groups for merge requests
>> and nothing else. And the more of those groups we create with every
>> project that moves the bigger the incentive will be to not use
>> +kde-developers but the smaller group for commit rights.
>>
> why do you bring +kde-developers in? it is *exactly* the equivalent of
> having an svn account.
> what you *might* want to consider is having separate <project>-reviewers
> and <project>-developers groups - in case you want to give -developers
> more rights, like editing the home page or admin rights. but that can
> stay within the projects, as the project groups are defined to be
> self-administering. to minimize overhead, you'd give reviewer access to
> both -developers and -reviewers, so devs would not need to be in two
> project groups.

Actually -- you have a good point, in that amarok-developers should
probably be renamed amarok-reviewers. Since it's been agreed with the
sysadmin team that development happens via the kde-developers group,
there's not really a point any longer to the amarok-developers group as
it originally existed (which predated kde-developers). Renaming it
amarok-reviewers would help better convey its purpose. (Unless at some
point it gets more abilities, if access control becomes more fine-grained.)

As for Lydia's objections, I think she has a valid point in that people
should be able to remove themselves from groups they're in. But I don't
really see the problem with having separate groups for merge requests.

So long as the Gitorious capabilities are defined in these three broad
strokes, and we have the goal of maintaining our existing development
infrastructure (thus the kde-developers group and kde-sysadmin group) I
don't actually see how you could really handle the merge requests
properly in any other way, which is why I set it up that way for the
Amarok repository, and sent the sysadmin list an email explaining it.

--Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-scm-interest/attachments/20091209/577444db/attachment.sig