Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on

Michael, Ray,

That's a nice discussion to have, but a goal on the initiative was to try to match what we have now (with the inherited niceties for those workflow/use cases), with the less disruption possible, while keeping the "nice things we could do" for a later case-by-case evaluation.

My motivation is to not derive the discussion into details of what we could do, but rather keep on the big change and what blockers/concerns/disruptions could cause.

Best regards,
Carlos Soriano

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on
Local Time: May 16, 2017 8:21 PM
UTC Time: May 16, 2017 6:21 PM
From: halfline gmail com
To: Christoph Reiter <reiter christoph gmail com>
Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro gnome org>, Allan Day <aday gnome org>, desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>

It's quite hard to get commit access atm because you have to be
trusted initially. If a maintainer can give commit access to one repo
he/she watches anyway there is less trust needed in the beginning. Or
if a new contributor wants to take over an abandoned project.
is that true? I mean you have to have someone with commit access vouch for you but that's a pretty low bar. I don't think it should be any lower than that, but I also wouldn't want to see it higher than that.  GNOME has had open ACLs from the beginning and it's a good thing! There's no evidence of abuse, we shouldn't go locking everything down just because we can.
IMO, there should be three access tiers:
1) Can report issues and propose fixes
2) Can triage issues
3) Can fix issues

Anything more granular than that is a bad idea. It just introduces artificial barriers that people will run into. (What happens when a maintainer goes AWOL ?)
Let's keep things open like we always have!


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]