[forum] Re: Invitation for public discussion about the future of X

[Mark Vojkovich]

   I think a two-stage CVS (devel and stable branches) is worth
considering.  I also expect it could be a large maintainence burden
keeping the two in sync.  I think if we were just more efficient
with getting patches reviewed by the appropriate maintainers,
something like this might not be necessary in the first place.


			Mark.


On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-15] José Fonseca wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:48:21PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > 	- Extend CVS access to regular contributors.  Use scripts or 
> > > 	whatever to control access to subtrees if you want.
> > 
> > This comes up from time to time, and I'm sure will get discussed even more.
> > I know there have been offers to others for CVS commit access, and some
> > have refused and some have accepted. The consensus of who gets commit
> > access has always been - if they show competance at sending patches in,
> > then after a period of time, no doubt they'll get it. It's the same as
> > the DRI, but with more of a prolonged period of evaluating that persons
> > patches. I guess this 'prolonged' period, is the stickling point for most.
>  
> Why not simply have a second CVS repository, where most development
> would take place under, while the current repository would be the one
> used for (pre-/post-) releases with coarse-grain commits. Like stable
> and development branches, but with the branches being on different
> repositories.
> 
> This could give an effective answer to people desires:
>  - CVS write access of the 2nd repository could be given to more people,
>    with less 
>  - The core developers would retain full control over the releases
>  - Patches could be commited faster and could be tested more
>    effectively. Less burden on the core developers as patch would
>    already been tested by a regular developer and verified by users
>    until a decision to include on the 1st repository has to be made.
>  - Nightly builds of the 2nd repository could be made available so that
>    users could test the lastest fixes and/or new features. 
> 
> It seems a more scalable and open development model without damage for
> the existing rights. At least it would be a step forward from the
> current deteriorating situation.
> 
> José Fonseca
> _______________________________________________
> Forum mailing list
> Forum@XFree86.Org
> http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum
>