[Kde-scm-interest] the permissions confusion

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Saturday 12 December 2009 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:31:26AM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > > b) we want all devs to be able to commit to any kde-developers owned repo
> > > and
> > 
> > mostly. and don't start denying the existence of the svn acl now ...
> 
> Wouldn't the special cases like the www part of SVN (are there others?) just 
> be a separate repository not owned by kde-developers?
> 
we're talking about whole-repo permissions (which translates to group
memberships) all the time. ;)

> > > likewise, we want all devs to be able to comment on and otherwise process
> > > merge requests ?
> > 
> > no.
> > while commenting is allowed at any time (both technically and socially),
> > approving lies in the hands of the maintainers of the respective
> > subproject. it has never been different in kde. the technical limitation
> > of access is a nice indicator of the maintainers' preference.
> 
> There are so many cases in the history of KDE where maintainers went away 
> without notice, don't care about other people committing to their code, or 
> like just informally telling people to go ahead without the need to log in to 
> some system, that I would think any technical limitation would seriously 
> hamper our workflow.
> 
while the number of examples is numerous, it is nowhere near a figure
which is hard to comprehend. an simple administrative process to
"reclaim" a project by the "public" isn't particularly hard to
establish. heck, you can even take over arbitrary projects on
sourceforge if you demonstrate that the maintainers are MIA and that you
have a genuine interest in taking over. how hard can it be for kde to do
that?

> We should work on the policies, on educating people about how to work
> with git (especially the workflow parts), on maintaining the culture
> of mutual respect.  Then we don't need these kind of new technical
> limitations and can spend our time on more central and important
> stuff.
> 
yeah, and now back to reality. ;)